Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

Seriously though, malone (as I more or less said @49), it's when dictionaries report usage without mentioning that the usage is incorrect (and leading to "it's in the dictionary" justifications in crosswords and other scenarios) that irritates me.

I think it's the usual 'language has to evolve' versus 'but that is simply wrong' argument. I don't mind Chambers saying 'aggravate; to irritate or annoy, (inf)' as this adequately reflects usage over the last two, three or four decades. I wouldn't want or expect Chambers to define this as 'incorrect' now, even though I know the original meaning. I think we've all got our own little lists - words/usages of words - that matter to us, are capable of offending us.

Yes, but, as I said earlier, originally "aggravate" and "irritate" had usefully different meanings; now, for many, they don't.

Yes, the different meanings may have gone, but it's perhaps a sign that the original 'aggravate' wasn't used much/enough (except in, say, legal circles), so its time was up? And we've acquired many new words ... not all of them attractive!
PS I continue to use 'aggravate' only in its 'correct' sense.