>>I like your definition for the term aggravate.

>>But, many dictionaries state that the secondary meaning of the Latin root, is “to irritate, annoy, burden…” hence that to say: ‘You aggravate me’ is a correct usage. I agree with your definition; it makes good sense that the word be used as you explain… no matter the old meaning. i.e.: a situation, condition, state, etc can be aggravated NOT a person! But I am confused about the confusion of those in authority of setting it straight?

Grammar Slammer says:

Aggravate or Irritate?
Aggravate mean “to make worse.” The root is grave, in the sense of “serious.” Remember this root when spelling the word.
Irritate means “to exasperate” or “to inflame.”

Incorrect: His teasing aggravated me.
Correct: His teasing irritated me.
Incorrect: That meal irritated my condition.
Correct: That meal aggravated my condition.

Dear Mr. D___,

Take a look at our newsletter about dictionaries https://www.englishplus.com/news/news1100.htm. Most dictionaries these days are descriptive, that is, they simply describe what people say and write. A few are prescriptive, they analyze words and comment on usage. You are no doubt referring to a descriptive dictionary. Yes, people do sometimes say “aggravate” when they mean “irritate.” The dictionary is recording that. However, if you want to be precise, especially in your writing, do not confuse the two words or your readers may be confused as well.

Dear N___:

You wrote:

>Are these sentences correct:
>A-You would have your work cut out for you to interview him.
>B-To interview him, you would have your work cut out for you.

>If they are, what do they mean?

Yes, they are correct. They both mean the same thing as the adverbial infinitive phrase can come before or after the main clause.

“To have your work cut out for you” (or “his work for him,” etc.) is an idiom which means that you will have to prepare for some hard work. In this case, “it will take hard work for you to interview him.”

The idiom comes from the image of a kit of some kind where the pieces are normally precut (say, a toy airplane). It is clearly more work if you have to cut the pieces out and measure them correctly yourself. The expression is normally used with the word “work,” but I have heard it with the word “task” or “job.”

I hope this helps.

Dear Navi:

You wrote:

>Is there any difference between:
>1-Don’t talk to John before I am back.
>2-Don’t talk to John until I am back.

>Do either of these sentences imply that you should talk to John when I have come back? Does either one mean:
>”Wait till I am back and then do talk to John.”

They are similar, but there is a subtle difference. #2 sets a specific condition, #1 is a bit more general. #2 suggests that there is a specific condition that cannot be fulfilled until I return. #1 merely suggests timing.

For example, if I were leaving to find out some information that John would want to know, then I might say #2 because a certain condition (my finding out something more) would give a better reason for speaking to John.

#2 can suggest “Wait till I am back and then do talk to John” if the context has been established. Without a context, neither is imperative about talking to John, just about NOT talking to him. Neither really says what your sentence in quotation marks suggests.

Dear Joan Skliar:

You wrote:

>>Why do we change “too” to “so” when using “should have”?
>>Ex: He bought too much popcorn at the movie. He shouldn’t have bought so much popcorn at the movie.
>
>
They mean two different things. You could certainly say “He shouldn’t have bought too much popcorn,” but it means something else. Ditto with “He bought so much popcorn.”

Too means “excessively.”

So in this sense means something akin to “thus,” “such,” or “in this or that way.” In other words, saying “so much” you are indicating either that the listener is aware of how much popcorn he bought, or you are going to tell him. For example, “He bought so much popcorn that he had to throw half of it away.”

Do you recall the scene in the film Casablanca with the two Dutch refugees who are fleeing to America and trying to teach one another English? When told that it is ten o’clock (or “ten watch”), one of them says “Such much?” She should have said “So much?” or “So late?” but the reply does illustrate what “so” means in this sense.

Either sentence works fine with either word, but they have two different meanings.