A Dictionary of Cont..
A Dictionary of Cont..
A Dictionary of Cont..
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
tensification <strong>of</strong> some evil, some sorrow, grievance,<br />
or oBense (The failure <strong>of</strong> his business<br />
aggravated Mr. Domhey’s grief for the death<br />
<strong>of</strong> his son). Its common use to mean annoy<br />
(Don’t aggravate me, child) and still more<br />
common adjectival use (He’s such an aggrc;Nvatiflg<br />
man) are colloquialisms (“feminine or<br />
childish,” Fowler sternly calls them) not used<br />
in formal speech or writing.<br />
Annoy is simply the French word ennui<br />
which now means boredom and that is all<br />
annoy meant at first, though it now expresses<br />
a somewhat stronger feeling <strong>of</strong> discomfort.<br />
To irritate is to fret, to chafe, to gall, to<br />
excite to impatience or to feelings <strong>of</strong> anger,<br />
though not <strong>of</strong> any great depth or <strong>of</strong> any great<br />
duration. We speak <strong>of</strong> a wound as being irritated<br />
when through the chafing or rubbing <strong>of</strong><br />
a coarse bandage it has been superficially<br />
inflamed.<br />
Exasperate is a stronger word than irritate<br />
(though it is sometimes weakened to a mere<br />
synonym for annoy). The Latin root word<br />
asper means rough and harsh. A man is exasperated<br />
when he has been annoyed or irritated<br />
to the point where his self-control is threatened<br />
or lost. An exasperated man is a dangerous man.<br />
To provoke is to stir up (literally, to call<br />
forth) sudden and strong feelings <strong>of</strong> anger<br />
or resentment, usually by some unwarrantable<br />
act or wanton annoyance (The rage which<br />
Oswald’s impertinence provoked in Lear,<br />
already annoyed by the delay <strong>of</strong> his dinner,<br />
was aggravated to fury by Goneril’s insole.nce<br />
und the exasperated man rushed wildly from<br />
the palace).<br />
gnostic; atheist; heathen; infidel; pagan. The word<br />
agnostic was coined in 1869 by Thomas Henry<br />
Huxley to describe one who, like himself, :felt<br />
that the ultimate nature <strong>of</strong> things, including<br />
the existence <strong>of</strong> a God, is unknown and<br />
probably unknowable.<br />
An atheist is one who denies the existence<br />
<strong>of</strong> God or <strong>of</strong> gods (Socrates was accused <strong>of</strong><br />
atheism because he did not believe in Zeus).<br />
An infidel is an unbeliever. The word was<br />
rather specialized among Christians in former<br />
times to apply to Mohammedans and among<br />
Mohammedans to Jews and Christians. In<br />
recent years there has been a tendency in<br />
America to give the word a wider significance<br />
and have it apply to agnostics and atheists.<br />
Indeed many Americans if they felt that a<br />
Mohammedan was a devout believer in his own<br />
religion would be reluctant to call him an<br />
infidel.<br />
The unconverted <strong>of</strong> other religions were<br />
called heathens or pagans, both words meaning<br />
originally country dwellers, i.e., rustic, backward<br />
folk who clung to their own religion after<br />
Christianity had been accepted in the cities.<br />
Both words, in current usage, tend to be used<br />
in slightly comic contexts. Heathen is <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
used jestingly <strong>of</strong> one who shows gross ignorance<br />
<strong>of</strong> some tenet <strong>of</strong> his pr<strong>of</strong>essed faith.<br />
Pagan is <strong>of</strong>ten used to suggest a gay abandon<br />
and frank sensuality, such as is imagined at<br />
2!I<br />
agreement<br />
least to have been enjoyed before the dominance<br />
<strong>of</strong> Christian ethics.<br />
agony; agonize. Agony is one <strong>of</strong> the strongest<br />
words in English. It means extreme, and<br />
generally prolonged, pain and suffering. And<br />
to agonize means to writhe with such pain<br />
(The agony <strong>of</strong> the injured man was dreadful<br />
to see. He agonized for months over the<br />
thought <strong>of</strong> his son’s execution). To use it-as<br />
it is so <strong>of</strong>ten used-as a term for mere discomfort<br />
(I was in agony in those new shoes)<br />
doesn’t even convey, as it is probably meant<br />
to, a feeling <strong>of</strong> one’s suffering because the<br />
listener, hearing so violent a word and knowing<br />
from the speaker’s appearance <strong>of</strong> health<br />
that it can’t be justified, at once discounts it.<br />
The speaker is usually aware <strong>of</strong> this and in<br />
his turn seeks to bolster the word with extreme<br />
emphasis, usually prolonging the sound <strong>of</strong> the<br />
initial a into a wail. But it doesn’t do much<br />
good. My feet hurt would most likely be more<br />
effective.<br />
agree may be followed by an infinitive, as in<br />
he agreed to go, or by a clause, as in he agreed<br />
that he would go. If the -ing form <strong>of</strong> a verb<br />
is used we must say agree on, as in he agreed<br />
on going.<br />
agreement: pronouns. See pronouns.<br />
agreement: verbs. A verb is said to “agree with<br />
its subject in number and person.” Number<br />
means the distinction between singular and<br />
pltiral. Person means the distinction between<br />
the speaker (called the first person), the person<br />
spoken to (called the second person), and the<br />
person or thing spoken about (called the third<br />
person). English verbs do not show number<br />
or person in the past tense. We say I spoke,<br />
he spoke, they spoke. In the present tense the<br />
first and second person in the singular and all<br />
three persons in the plural have the same form.<br />
We say I. we, you, and they speak. But the<br />
third person singular has a distinctive final s,<br />
as in he speaks. There are a few defective<br />
verbs, such as may, can, might, which do not<br />
show number or person in any tense. The verb<br />
to be is the only other exception to what has<br />
just been said. In the past tense it has two<br />
forms, was and were. In the present tense it<br />
has a distinctive first person singular (am) as<br />
well as a third person singular (is) and a<br />
general plural form (are). (For archaic forms<br />
<strong>of</strong> the verb, see thee; thou.) In American<br />
English, there is no difference in number or<br />
person in the future tense. (In Great Britain<br />
shall and will are used differently in different<br />
persons. See shall; will.)<br />
NUMBER<br />
Since we can get along with only one form<br />
in the past tense, it is obvious that we do not<br />
need two forms in the present, but we have two<br />
forms and, whether we want to or not, we must<br />
decide whether a present tense verb is to be<br />
singular or plural. We cannot avoid committing<br />
ourselves one way or the other.<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> an English verb is determined<br />
by the actual meaning <strong>of</strong> the subject<br />
or by the grammatical form <strong>of</strong> the subject