deludge vs inundated

"If I hadn't been deluged with work the day before, I would have come to the train station in time to see him off."

OR

"If I hadn't been inundated with work the day before, I would have come to the train station in time to see him off."

Which one do we use more often "deludged with" or "inundated with"?

Both sound good to me. I'd use either one.

Barb_D said:

Both sound good to me. I'd use either one.

Click to expand...

Do you often get to hear them in conversation?

Often? Probably not often, but not so rarely that I would consider it surprising to hear one. Probably inundated more often than deluged.

Barb_D said:

Often? Probably not often, but not so rarely that I would consider it surprising to hear one. Probably inundated more often than deluged.

Click to expand...

What would be more colloquial for it?

ostap77 said:

What would be more colloquial for it?

Click to expand...

Swamped with work would be more colloquial. Please note that the correct spelling is deluged.

Swamped was also exactly what I was going to suggest.

Sometimes I say "I'm under water right now."

Interesting that so many have to do with water: deluged, swamped, under water.

Barb's 'under water' gives rise to an expression (and accompanying gesture) that you could use in an informal context: 'If I hadn't been up to here [indicating the surface of the water at about the level of your nostrils] with work...'.

b

PS You can also use 'up to here' to mean you're fed up with something: 'I've had it up to here'.