19.04.2013 Views

A Dictionary of Cont..

A Dictionary of Cont..

A Dictionary of Cont..

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!