×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

That is so aggravating...
2

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.

RE: That is so aggravating...

Hi Beggar,

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...

[i]from <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aggravate&r=67>[i/]

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 ;)

Due to illness, the part of The Tick will be played by... The Tick.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

RE: That is so aggravating...

(OP)
The "annoy" meaning is a colloquialism and is to be avoided in formal communications. The danger with casually adopting colloquialisms and nonstandard forms in speech is that they have a tendency to creep into writing.

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...

Quote (Beggar):

The "annoy" meaning is a colloquialism and is to be avoided in formal communications.
That is an interesting statement, and I think worth pursuing.  Can you provide some background material from which to form a basis of discussion?

RE: That is so aggravating...

(OP)
At this point I can only provide anecdotal material, none of which I imagine would sway anybody whose opinion differs from mine.

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...

(OP)
Well, at least Fowler agrees with me...

(As found at http://www.bartleby.com/116/108.html)

Quote:


To aggravate is not to annoy or enrage (a person), but to make worse (a condition or trouble). The active participle should very rarely, and the rest of the active practically never, be used without an expressed object, and that of the right kind. In the sentence, An aggravating circumstance was that the snow was dirty, the meaning is not that the dirt was annoying, but that it added to some other misery previously expressed or implied. But, as the dirt happens to be annoying also, this use is easily misunderstood, and is probably the origin of the notorious vulgarism; since it almost inevitably lays a writer open to suspicion, it is best avoided. Of the following quotations, the first is quite correct, the other five as clearly wrong; in the fifth, aggrieved would be the right word.


A premature initiative would be useless and even dangerous, being calculated rather to aggravate than to simplify the situation.—Times.

Perhaps the most trying and aggravating period of the whole six months during which the siege has lasted was this period of enforced idleness waiting for the day of entry.—Times.

There is a cold formality about the average Englishman; a lack of effusive disposition to ingratiate himself, and an almost aggravating indifference to alien customs or conventions.—Times.

Mrs. Craigie may possibly be regarding him with an irony too fine for us to detect; but to the ordinary mind he appears to be conceived in the spirit of romance, and a very stupid, tiresome, aggravating man he is.—Times.

'Well, I'm sure I'm very much obliged to you, Misses Brown,' said the unfortunate youth, greatly aggravated.—Dickens.

Nevertheless, it is an aggravating book, though we are bound to admit that we have been greatly interested.—Westminster Gazette.

RE: That is so aggravating...

(OP)
However, The American Heritage® Book of English Usage disagrees.

Quote:


 
3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints

 
§ 19. aggravate
Aggravate need not be an aggravating word. It comes from the Latin verb aggravare, which has two meanings: “to make heavier,” that is, “to add to the weight of,” and “to annoy,” “oppress,” “burden.” When some people nowadays claim that aggravate should mean only “to make worse” and not “to irritate,” they ignore not only an English sense in use since the 17th century but also one of the original Latin ones.

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...

Good information, Beggar.

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...

I think I use this term correctly, according to Beggar.  There are people in my office that irritate and annoy me, and whenever I have to deal with them, they begin to aggravate me.

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...

Beggar, I am with you.  That aggravates me to no end.

rmw

RE: That is so aggravating...

Beggar,

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...

".... a living changing language"

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...

Sorry, but I think that's the same absurdity that we accuse the French of promoting.  That's a guarantee for killing a language.

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...

Where does the absurdity begin and end?
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...

(OP)
Here's my take on it:

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...

I would tend to agree with the "core idea" that jmw has presented, not nearly in such a drastic manner though.  With each countries global involvement in engineering and programming becoming more apparent, English is fast becoming the standard that is required by any company that wants to compete.  This is one reason outsourcing to India for phone-based tech support has become so well received.

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...

Language is neither a law nor a religion.  There is no heresy in using new words or getting rid of old words.  Language is simply a symbology for ideas.  

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...

MadMango: What's wrong with the OED ? As far as I am aware, it's generally regarded as the standard in the English speaking world. Since its inception it has always accepted wide input from all over the English speaking world, and is very "with it" to this day.

RE: That is so aggravating...

Nothing wrong with the Oxford English Dictionary (?), just too bad they don't utilize it more in the USA school systems.

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...

Most lexicographers, including those of the OED, would recognise that a dictionary is a record of usage from the past up to publishing time. It is not a definition (or even a recommendation) of future usage. To make that claim would be an attempt to crystallise the language in the same way that Academie Francais is attempting.

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...

Yeah, English is undergoing change but it is becoming like an untended garden; the grass needs cutting, the bushes pruning and someone to pick up all the trash thrown over the wall.

JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com

RE: That is so aggravating...

MadMango et al,

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...

I would argue that the OED today does not have a particularly British slant, if indeed it ever did. Some of the early contributors were American, and others were drawn from all over the British Empire. Today, there is at least one American lexicographer in a key editorial position. I think you would find that the staff of the OED are fully cogniscant of the fact that American English is today the de facto standard.
Check this out on Amazon : The Meaning Of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources