Full can be mistaken for a description of a whole as opposed to a part.
For example:

"The [full] frog hopped back to its lily-pad."

Can be understood as:

"The frog [that had eaten recently and was no longer hungry] hopped back to its lily-pad."


"The frog [no longer a tadpole or other "pre-frog" stage] or [not a piece of the frog but the whole frog] hopped back to its lily-pad.

What is a way of saying someone or something is "full" without that possible misunderstanding?


7 Answers 7


One word you could use is “sated": ( from M-W)

  • having one's appetite completely satisfied:

    • the sated baby fell instantly to sleep.
  • 2
    That's the word .....Sometimes you're so hungry you feel like you could eat a ten-course meal. Other times it takes just a small salad to sate your appetite.
    – Misti
    Dec 9, 2014 at 12:09
  • 3
    Is there any noticeable difference between using sated and satiated?
    – agweber
    Dec 9, 2014 at 16:13
  • 10
    I think that "satiated" has a more "filling" feel to it.
    – Hot Licks
    Dec 9, 2014 at 17:43
  • 1
    My gastronomic rapacity knows no satiety (sorry - had to).
    – Ben
    Dec 9, 2014 at 21:02
  • 1
    I think "sate" and "sated" is probably more technically correct, but I never hear/see it used - normally people say "satisfy" and "satiated" instead.
    – Benubird
    Dec 10, 2014 at 8:45

You could say that the frog is replete:-

Filled to satiation; gorged. [American Heritage Dictionary via The Free Dictionary]


having one's appetite completely or excessively satisfied by food and drink; stuffed; gorged; satiated [Collins English Dictionary via The Free Dictionary]

  • You are not answering the question. The asker asked "The [xxx] frog hopped back to its lily-pad". Can you verify your answer by saying "The repleted frog hopped back to its lily-pad" ? I'm not wasting a downvote on your answer, though it deserves one. Dec 9, 2014 at 11:42
  • 22
    @BlessedGeek, I'm not sure I understand your objection; one would say The replete frog.... Dec 9, 2014 at 12:47
  • 2
    The synonyms "stuffed" and "gorged" given are also very good candidates for the original question. Dec 9, 2014 at 14:05
  • 1
    This sounds more than full to me.
    – Octopus
    Dec 10, 2014 at 0:20
  • The stuffed frog... So many meanings! Taxidermy, incredibly tired, etc. The two best words from your answer are replete and sated / satiated.
    – CJ Dennis
    Dec 10, 2014 at 2:51

You could say that the frog is satisfied, and let the user connect the frog's satisfaction to the meal you previously described: The satisfied frog hopped back to its lily pond.

You could use fully or totally satisfied to emphasise that the frog had eaten all that it desired.

  • One could also use the word to say: Satisfied with his meal, the frog hopped back to its lily-pad.
    – IQAndreas
    Dec 11, 2014 at 12:07
  • 1
    (Otherwise, satisfied could be a bit ambiguous as he may have just returned from an intense froggystyle lovemaking session)
    – IQAndreas
    Dec 11, 2014 at 12:22

Another option is to re-word the sentence to avoid the misunderstanding.

"Engorged with flies, the frog hopped back onto its lily-pad".

Not speaking to the question, but I've always enjoyed the term 'frolicking bog-hopper' for frog.

  • 6
    If he can still hop, he's not very good at gorging himself. Also, moderate me to hell if you must, but plus one for frolicking bog-hopper.
    – msouth
    Dec 9, 2014 at 21:47

I personally enjoy the slang:

Stuffed v 4. To cram with food

Although "The stuffed frog" wouldn't necessary sound the best here. Better in an application like "I am stuffed"


This seems a more familiar to me than "sated":

Satiated: Verb (used with object), satiated, satiating.

1.to supply with anything to excess, so as to disgust or weary; surfeit.

2.to satisfy to the full; sate.



As it's one of my favourite phrases, I'm honour-bound to share the following:

  • to have had an ample sufficiency.

In this case:

  • Having had an ample sufficiency, the frog hopped back to its lily-pad.
  • 1
    its, not it's! (SE won't let me edit that because the change is less than 6 characters...)
    – laszlok
    Dec 10, 2014 at 15:55
  • Isn't there some redundancy in 'ample sufficiency'?
    – peterG
    Dec 11, 2014 at 14:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.