That is so aggravating...
That is so aggravating...
(OP)
Here's one of my pet peeves -- one which I often hear even from people whose English is otherwise very good: People say aggravate when they mean irritate or annoy.
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
That is so aggravating...
|
That is so aggravating...That is so aggravating...(OP)
Here's one of my pet peeves -- one which I often hear even from people whose English is otherwise very good: People say aggravate when they mean irritate or annoy.
Red Flag SubmittedThank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. Reply To This ThreadPosting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! |
ResourcesWhat is rapid injection molding? For engineers working with tight product design timelines, rapid injection molding can be a critical tool for prototyping and testing functional models. Download Now
The world has changed considerably since the 1980s, when CAD first started displacing drafting tables. Download Now
Prototyping has always been a critical part of product development. Download Now
As the cloud is increasingly adopted for product development, questions remain as to just how cloud software tools compare to on-premise solutions. Download Now
|
RE: That is so aggravating...
I guess that you anglo-saxon guys know much more about your language than we scandinavians do. But, I always have thought about 'aggravate' as having several meanings. One is "to make worse" and the other is "to annoy". Wouldn't that second meaning be an excuse for using 'aggravate' the way you describe?
RE: That is so aggravating...
ag·gra·vate ag·gra·vat·ed, ag·gra·vat·ing, ag·gra·vates
1.) To make worse or more troublesome.
2.) To rouse to exasperation or anger; provoke. See Synonyms at annoy.
One of my pet peeves is people who fail to do adequate research ;)
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com
RE: That is so aggravating...
I do not understand why one would choose to use a nonstandard form to substitute for the proper word.
Perhaps it's just me...
RE: That is so aggravating...
RE: That is so aggravating...
I've held this as true ever since it was taught to me in my argumentative writing class during my second year of college. (This is the primary reason for my belief.)
I also heard this on an NPR show discussing language.
Lastly, I've never heard or seen it used by language professionals.
At some point I'll do some hunting to see if I can back it up with a written statement by an "expert."
So far it appears I'm down 3-1 on this issue...
RE: That is so aggravating...
(As found at http://www.bartleby.com/116/108.html)
RE: That is so aggravating...
Since I never know which view someone might take and thereby form an incorrect judgement of me, my policy from now one will be to always opt for the standard usage of words, punctuation, etc.
Oh yeah, and regarding my statement about avoiding colloquialisms, my reference by Hacker supports that statement.
RE: That is so aggravating...
Now all we have to do is figure out just what is the standard usage of words, punctuation, and the like.
RE: That is so aggravating...
Ray Reynolds
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: That is so aggravating...
rmw
RE: That is so aggravating...
My 1999 Oxford Pocket Fowler's differs somewhat from your on-line version:
"The meaning 'to annoy or exasperate' has existed in good sources since the early 17C; despite this, Fowler (1926) recommended that it 'should be left to the uneducated'."
It then goes on to describe the usage as a synonym for "annoy" as being common practice and acceptable.
Just another example of English as a living, changing language, I guess.
I personally prefer the more traditional usage meaning "to make more serious", but this is one that I don't pull people up on. (Or should that be "Up with which I do not pull people"?)
RE: That is so aggravating...
More like the decent from order into chaos. We seem to have more dictionaries beinmg touted here than Heavyweight Boxing titles and all, because of their contradictions, about as believable.
I think we need a unification series where we reduce them down to:
a) one "english-as-it-is-spoken-in-the-UK-excluding-modern-day-BBC (where the is a movement toward regional accents on national channels flaunted by illiterates with spots just out of school",
b)one Australian (non-strine),
c)One USA (I assume that as the dominant language, there is also an Official US Spanish, but not yet our concern).
We can forget about a Euro version since there will never be a concensus.
We also need to select a year of publication. We can then dub these the Eng-Tips approved dictionaries and henceforth these will be our benchmarks.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: That is so aggravating...
Why should I or anyone else be prevented from using a word or phrase that we want to use? That's part of having freedom of speech.
TTFN
RE: That is so aggravating...
My right to free speech should allow me to spell words anyway i like, exactly as people used to spell them any way they liked before some one had thebright idea for a dictionary.
Except that today we don't have one dictionary of English, we have a variety of them and available in new editions every year. Ecept that they no longer seek to regulate the spelling of words, they now exploit the variability of spelling to produce new versions every year.
Do you get the point?
A dictionary does, or used to do, exactly what the French are trying to do with their language; stop people corrupting it through misue use of the language.
So now we have to decide. Do we want a dictionary, and stick with it or do we claim "freedom of expression" and throw them away and spell the way we feel like? Do we reject some words as slang and not a formal part of the language or do we let them all in?
Somewhere in between, would you think? OK, so who is deciding and on what basis? Like everything else, usually some one says enough is enough. "The official language of this multinational user group is now English." !ASTM Dxxxx now defines these tests and you won't change them until we have had another official review in 5 years time." etc.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: That is so aggravating...
I have the right to speak and write however I wish.
You have the right to judge my education and intelligence based on how I speak and write.
I, therefore, choose to use standard usage to the best of my understanding and ability.
My definition of standard is that which I can find in common references and that which I hear in the speech of people who I consider to be bright, informed, and well educated - including many of my colleagues here on Eng-Tips.
If it's an issue of some controversey (e.g. the acronym/apostrophe thing or use of "aggravate"), I opt for the less controversial usage unless I can't think of a way around it or want to communicate something specific.
RE: That is so aggravating...
What I would support would be a standardized, global dictionary and grammar usage for commercial purposes. Much like the standards we are already familiar with, such as ISO, CE, UL, ASTM, etc.
This way, we maintain our "freedom of speech" in our private lives and casual encounters, but in the business world (where all things matter) everyone will be able to communicate.
Ray Reynolds
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: That is so aggravating...
So long as ideas are adequately communicated, we could just as easily use clicks and whistles to get the message across. And that's really the point. If the message can be transmitted, job done.
That's why English works so well, because we're willing to allow the language to become the polyglot and assimilate new ideas and new words. That's why "chow mein" is acceptable in English and "le hamburger" is not acceptable in French.
TTFN
RE: That is so aggravating...
RE: That is so aggravating...
Each country (especially France) tries to put their own spin on English words, and each country has a different meaning for some words, or different words for common items. This could lead to miscommunication. Throughout history, people and cultures have had to adapt to their neighbor's language if they wanted to succeed in trade (business). The same holds true today, with English leading the pack and extending its lead.
The problem is that many people in positions of leadership fail to check their own grammar and spelling, which perpetuates the situation and abuse.
Ray Reynolds
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: That is so aggravating...
English is a living language, and has been undergoing continuous change during the last (at least) two thousand years. I see no reason to suppose that the version we currently use is the imago. It is indeed those changes that allow and encourage the worldwide acceptance and common use of the language.
Good Luck
johnwm
RE: That is so aggravating...
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: That is so aggravating...
The only problem with deciding on a universal dictionary is - which one?
I believe there is a very strong argument to use the OED, as the most respected dictionary of English as it is spoken in England. (And the English did invent the language, after all!) However, what chance have we got to convince Americans that it is "colour" not "color", "nuclear" is pronounced "new-cle-ar" not "nook-oo-lar", and so on?
One significant issue is that the OED can be relatively slow to list local variations. I personally use the Macquarie as my "bible", as it is the most respected dictionary of Australian usage. Americans generally seem to prefer Webster's, and that's fine with me.
And besides, since the OED lists common British AND American spellings, how does this help us decide which one is "right"?
I think we just have to learn to live with the fact that there is no such thing as a single, standard form of English.
RE: That is so aggravating...
Check this out on Amazon : The Meaning Of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary