Is “angried” synonymous with “angry”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
One of my friends asked me whether "angried" can be used in place of "angry" or not. It led me to a google search, and I got these results to my surprise. It is for the first time that I come across such a usage as:
Then, reconsidering, she added, "No, actually I'm angried." -
"Angried?" "Whatever for?"
Can we use "angried" in place of "angry"? Is it a standard and acceptable usage?
synonyms
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
One of my friends asked me whether "angried" can be used in place of "angry" or not. It led me to a google search, and I got these results to my surprise. It is for the first time that I come across such a usage as:
Then, reconsidering, she added, "No, actually I'm angried." -
"Angried?" "Whatever for?"
Can we use "angried" in place of "angry"? Is it a standard and acceptable usage?
synonyms
1
To me it seems like an alternative spelling of "angered" -- i.e. when something has made you angry. As such it seems slightly different from "angry" which is what you are when something has angered you.
– neptun
Nov 21 at 12:59
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
One of my friends asked me whether "angried" can be used in place of "angry" or not. It led me to a google search, and I got these results to my surprise. It is for the first time that I come across such a usage as:
Then, reconsidering, she added, "No, actually I'm angried." -
"Angried?" "Whatever for?"
Can we use "angried" in place of "angry"? Is it a standard and acceptable usage?
synonyms
One of my friends asked me whether "angried" can be used in place of "angry" or not. It led me to a google search, and I got these results to my surprise. It is for the first time that I come across such a usage as:
Then, reconsidering, she added, "No, actually I'm angried." -
"Angried?" "Whatever for?"
Can we use "angried" in place of "angry"? Is it a standard and acceptable usage?
synonyms
synonyms
asked Nov 21 at 10:57
mahmud koya
6,7944724
6,7944724
1
To me it seems like an alternative spelling of "angered" -- i.e. when something has made you angry. As such it seems slightly different from "angry" which is what you are when something has angered you.
– neptun
Nov 21 at 12:59
add a comment |
1
To me it seems like an alternative spelling of "angered" -- i.e. when something has made you angry. As such it seems slightly different from "angry" which is what you are when something has angered you.
– neptun
Nov 21 at 12:59
1
1
To me it seems like an alternative spelling of "angered" -- i.e. when something has made you angry. As such it seems slightly different from "angry" which is what you are when something has angered you.
– neptun
Nov 21 at 12:59
To me it seems like an alternative spelling of "angered" -- i.e. when something has made you angry. As such it seems slightly different from "angry" which is what you are when something has angered you.
– neptun
Nov 21 at 12:59
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's and largely non-existent in the last century.
Looking at results for those years when it was slightly more popular, we find usages such as
- "[..] but Ahab had angried God"
- "Our temperate Sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction [..]"
- "[..] seemed very sorry, and desirous of appeasing the angried translator"
and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". See also angered vs angried.
Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage. See the full quote, also listed below in my edit.
Conclusion: use it at your own peril.
Edit:
Since you insist that my assessment of your search link was wrong, let's have a look.
We have a lot of old texts. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/c3ytb.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/xCg6W.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/PNCia.png -- an old text
There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/CbSJt.png -- used by an unruly
five-year-old, in italics
https://i.stack.imgur.com/MlmsO.png -- person A uses "angried", B
corrects her
https://i.stack.imgur.com/m8pev.png -- a quote in heavy dialect
Apart from these, there were some results which had in common that they
- used the word "angried" once in the whole book
- were published through self-publishing services
For instance:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4siNO.png -- self-published archaic-sounding poetry in (link)
https://i.stack.imgur.com/glpMR.png -- self-published youth thriller
(link)
One last thing: let's look at angried vs soliloquy. Note how the rather rare word "soliloquy" is more than 10000 times more common than angried throughout the whole century.
If none of these things convince you, and you insist on these sources being enough for you to use the word "angried", that's completely fine. I would use the common and accepted word "angered" instead.
New contributor
Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 17:26
@mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
– neptun
Nov 22 at 11:03
Instead of reducing a word usage to be a matter of our personal choice, what would you say about its general use in current English, is it appropriate or acceptable in modern and standard English?
– mahmud koya
Nov 22 at 12:29
1
The word is not in common use nor is it listed in any dictionary. It also seems to mean the same thing as a similar but much more common word, which is listed in dictionaries. What more do you want to know?
– neptun
Nov 22 at 12:48
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The NGram shows a small use of 'angered' against 'angry' but zero baseline for 'angried'.
The OED lists only one reference for 'angried' and it is represented as 'obsolete' with its reference being 'angrieth' not, actually, 'angried.
1642 T. Fuller Holy State v. i. 358 Nothing angrieth her so much, as when modest men affect a deafnesse.
The word 'angered' is listed by the OED without it saying it is 'rare' or 'obsolete' yet it has no modern references for it (surprisingly) :
1881 Daily News 11 Aug. 2/2 A somewhat angered controversy took place across the table.
1883 Harper's Mag. Feb. 483/1 The young man became angered.
OED gives the meanings 'irritated, inflamed, flushed with rage'.
Looking at the list linked to in the OP, I suspect that there is a BrE/AmE preference showing up, but it would require a lot of research to prove it.
1
No sir, it is not one writer's dim remembering. If you go through my cited link, you will find lots of such usage by different writers.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 12:03
Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
– Nigel J
Nov 21 at 12:08
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Your question is whether angried can be used in place of angry (which isn’t the same as angered) in your sample sentence. The other answers deal with the “standard and acceptable usage” part of your question. This answer deals with the portion in your title and in the bulk of your question text: whether one can be used in place of the other.
No, there is an important difference.
- No, actually I'm angry.
Being angry is purely an internal state. Although the context may indicate that there was a trigger for the anger, the wording doesn’t reference the trigger.
- No, actually I'm angried.
Being angried (or angered), on the other hand, references the trigger: it isn’t simply that you were angry, but that something made you so.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I think it is a misspelling or a nonstandard form at best (as a pp of to anger) Its usage is really rare, see:
Google Books: angried
Google Books: angried vs angry
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's and largely non-existent in the last century.
Looking at results for those years when it was slightly more popular, we find usages such as
- "[..] but Ahab had angried God"
- "Our temperate Sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction [..]"
- "[..] seemed very sorry, and desirous of appeasing the angried translator"
and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". See also angered vs angried.
Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage. See the full quote, also listed below in my edit.
Conclusion: use it at your own peril.
Edit:
Since you insist that my assessment of your search link was wrong, let's have a look.
We have a lot of old texts. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/c3ytb.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/xCg6W.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/PNCia.png -- an old text
There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/CbSJt.png -- used by an unruly
five-year-old, in italics
https://i.stack.imgur.com/MlmsO.png -- person A uses "angried", B
corrects her
https://i.stack.imgur.com/m8pev.png -- a quote in heavy dialect
Apart from these, there were some results which had in common that they
- used the word "angried" once in the whole book
- were published through self-publishing services
For instance:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4siNO.png -- self-published archaic-sounding poetry in (link)
https://i.stack.imgur.com/glpMR.png -- self-published youth thriller
(link)
One last thing: let's look at angried vs soliloquy. Note how the rather rare word "soliloquy" is more than 10000 times more common than angried throughout the whole century.
If none of these things convince you, and you insist on these sources being enough for you to use the word "angried", that's completely fine. I would use the common and accepted word "angered" instead.
New contributor
Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 17:26
@mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
– neptun
Nov 22 at 11:03
Instead of reducing a word usage to be a matter of our personal choice, what would you say about its general use in current English, is it appropriate or acceptable in modern and standard English?
– mahmud koya
Nov 22 at 12:29
1
The word is not in common use nor is it listed in any dictionary. It also seems to mean the same thing as a similar but much more common word, which is listed in dictionaries. What more do you want to know?
– neptun
Nov 22 at 12:48
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's and largely non-existent in the last century.
Looking at results for those years when it was slightly more popular, we find usages such as
- "[..] but Ahab had angried God"
- "Our temperate Sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction [..]"
- "[..] seemed very sorry, and desirous of appeasing the angried translator"
and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". See also angered vs angried.
Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage. See the full quote, also listed below in my edit.
Conclusion: use it at your own peril.
Edit:
Since you insist that my assessment of your search link was wrong, let's have a look.
We have a lot of old texts. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/c3ytb.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/xCg6W.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/PNCia.png -- an old text
There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/CbSJt.png -- used by an unruly
five-year-old, in italics
https://i.stack.imgur.com/MlmsO.png -- person A uses "angried", B
corrects her
https://i.stack.imgur.com/m8pev.png -- a quote in heavy dialect
Apart from these, there were some results which had in common that they
- used the word "angried" once in the whole book
- were published through self-publishing services
For instance:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4siNO.png -- self-published archaic-sounding poetry in (link)
https://i.stack.imgur.com/glpMR.png -- self-published youth thriller
(link)
One last thing: let's look at angried vs soliloquy. Note how the rather rare word "soliloquy" is more than 10000 times more common than angried throughout the whole century.
If none of these things convince you, and you insist on these sources being enough for you to use the word "angried", that's completely fine. I would use the common and accepted word "angered" instead.
New contributor
Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 17:26
@mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
– neptun
Nov 22 at 11:03
Instead of reducing a word usage to be a matter of our personal choice, what would you say about its general use in current English, is it appropriate or acceptable in modern and standard English?
– mahmud koya
Nov 22 at 12:29
1
The word is not in common use nor is it listed in any dictionary. It also seems to mean the same thing as a similar but much more common word, which is listed in dictionaries. What more do you want to know?
– neptun
Nov 22 at 12:48
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's and largely non-existent in the last century.
Looking at results for those years when it was slightly more popular, we find usages such as
- "[..] but Ahab had angried God"
- "Our temperate Sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction [..]"
- "[..] seemed very sorry, and desirous of appeasing the angried translator"
and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". See also angered vs angried.
Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage. See the full quote, also listed below in my edit.
Conclusion: use it at your own peril.
Edit:
Since you insist that my assessment of your search link was wrong, let's have a look.
We have a lot of old texts. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/c3ytb.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/xCg6W.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/PNCia.png -- an old text
There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/CbSJt.png -- used by an unruly
five-year-old, in italics
https://i.stack.imgur.com/MlmsO.png -- person A uses "angried", B
corrects her
https://i.stack.imgur.com/m8pev.png -- a quote in heavy dialect
Apart from these, there were some results which had in common that they
- used the word "angried" once in the whole book
- were published through self-publishing services
For instance:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4siNO.png -- self-published archaic-sounding poetry in (link)
https://i.stack.imgur.com/glpMR.png -- self-published youth thriller
(link)
One last thing: let's look at angried vs soliloquy. Note how the rather rare word "soliloquy" is more than 10000 times more common than angried throughout the whole century.
If none of these things convince you, and you insist on these sources being enough for you to use the word "angried", that's completely fine. I would use the common and accepted word "angered" instead.
New contributor
Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's and largely non-existent in the last century.
Looking at results for those years when it was slightly more popular, we find usages such as
- "[..] but Ahab had angried God"
- "Our temperate Sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction [..]"
- "[..] seemed very sorry, and desirous of appeasing the angried translator"
and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". See also angered vs angried.
Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage. See the full quote, also listed below in my edit.
Conclusion: use it at your own peril.
Edit:
Since you insist that my assessment of your search link was wrong, let's have a look.
We have a lot of old texts. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/c3ytb.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/xCg6W.png -- a recent book quoting an old
text
https://i.stack.imgur.com/PNCia.png -- an old text
There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/CbSJt.png -- used by an unruly
five-year-old, in italics
https://i.stack.imgur.com/MlmsO.png -- person A uses "angried", B
corrects her
https://i.stack.imgur.com/m8pev.png -- a quote in heavy dialect
Apart from these, there were some results which had in common that they
- used the word "angried" once in the whole book
- were published through self-publishing services
For instance:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4siNO.png -- self-published archaic-sounding poetry in (link)
https://i.stack.imgur.com/glpMR.png -- self-published youth thriller
(link)
One last thing: let's look at angried vs soliloquy. Note how the rather rare word "soliloquy" is more than 10000 times more common than angried throughout the whole century.
If none of these things convince you, and you insist on these sources being enough for you to use the word "angried", that's completely fine. I would use the common and accepted word "angered" instead.
New contributor
edited Nov 22 at 12:16
New contributor
answered Nov 21 at 14:08
neptun
1964
1964
New contributor
New contributor
Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 17:26
@mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
– neptun
Nov 22 at 11:03
Instead of reducing a word usage to be a matter of our personal choice, what would you say about its general use in current English, is it appropriate or acceptable in modern and standard English?
– mahmud koya
Nov 22 at 12:29
1
The word is not in common use nor is it listed in any dictionary. It also seems to mean the same thing as a similar but much more common word, which is listed in dictionaries. What more do you want to know?
– neptun
Nov 22 at 12:48
add a comment |
Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 17:26
@mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
– neptun
Nov 22 at 11:03
Instead of reducing a word usage to be a matter of our personal choice, what would you say about its general use in current English, is it appropriate or acceptable in modern and standard English?
– mahmud koya
Nov 22 at 12:29
1
The word is not in common use nor is it listed in any dictionary. It also seems to mean the same thing as a similar but much more common word, which is listed in dictionaries. What more do you want to know?
– neptun
Nov 22 at 12:48
Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 17:26
Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 17:26
@mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
– neptun
Nov 22 at 11:03
@mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
– neptun
Nov 22 at 11:03
Instead of reducing a word usage to be a matter of our personal choice, what would you say about its general use in current English, is it appropriate or acceptable in modern and standard English?
– mahmud koya
Nov 22 at 12:29
Instead of reducing a word usage to be a matter of our personal choice, what would you say about its general use in current English, is it appropriate or acceptable in modern and standard English?
– mahmud koya
Nov 22 at 12:29
1
1
The word is not in common use nor is it listed in any dictionary. It also seems to mean the same thing as a similar but much more common word, which is listed in dictionaries. What more do you want to know?
– neptun
Nov 22 at 12:48
The word is not in common use nor is it listed in any dictionary. It also seems to mean the same thing as a similar but much more common word, which is listed in dictionaries. What more do you want to know?
– neptun
Nov 22 at 12:48
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The NGram shows a small use of 'angered' against 'angry' but zero baseline for 'angried'.
The OED lists only one reference for 'angried' and it is represented as 'obsolete' with its reference being 'angrieth' not, actually, 'angried.
1642 T. Fuller Holy State v. i. 358 Nothing angrieth her so much, as when modest men affect a deafnesse.
The word 'angered' is listed by the OED without it saying it is 'rare' or 'obsolete' yet it has no modern references for it (surprisingly) :
1881 Daily News 11 Aug. 2/2 A somewhat angered controversy took place across the table.
1883 Harper's Mag. Feb. 483/1 The young man became angered.
OED gives the meanings 'irritated, inflamed, flushed with rage'.
Looking at the list linked to in the OP, I suspect that there is a BrE/AmE preference showing up, but it would require a lot of research to prove it.
1
No sir, it is not one writer's dim remembering. If you go through my cited link, you will find lots of such usage by different writers.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 12:03
Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
– Nigel J
Nov 21 at 12:08
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The NGram shows a small use of 'angered' against 'angry' but zero baseline for 'angried'.
The OED lists only one reference for 'angried' and it is represented as 'obsolete' with its reference being 'angrieth' not, actually, 'angried.
1642 T. Fuller Holy State v. i. 358 Nothing angrieth her so much, as when modest men affect a deafnesse.
The word 'angered' is listed by the OED without it saying it is 'rare' or 'obsolete' yet it has no modern references for it (surprisingly) :
1881 Daily News 11 Aug. 2/2 A somewhat angered controversy took place across the table.
1883 Harper's Mag. Feb. 483/1 The young man became angered.
OED gives the meanings 'irritated, inflamed, flushed with rage'.
Looking at the list linked to in the OP, I suspect that there is a BrE/AmE preference showing up, but it would require a lot of research to prove it.
1
No sir, it is not one writer's dim remembering. If you go through my cited link, you will find lots of such usage by different writers.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 12:03
Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
– Nigel J
Nov 21 at 12:08
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The NGram shows a small use of 'angered' against 'angry' but zero baseline for 'angried'.
The OED lists only one reference for 'angried' and it is represented as 'obsolete' with its reference being 'angrieth' not, actually, 'angried.
1642 T. Fuller Holy State v. i. 358 Nothing angrieth her so much, as when modest men affect a deafnesse.
The word 'angered' is listed by the OED without it saying it is 'rare' or 'obsolete' yet it has no modern references for it (surprisingly) :
1881 Daily News 11 Aug. 2/2 A somewhat angered controversy took place across the table.
1883 Harper's Mag. Feb. 483/1 The young man became angered.
OED gives the meanings 'irritated, inflamed, flushed with rage'.
Looking at the list linked to in the OP, I suspect that there is a BrE/AmE preference showing up, but it would require a lot of research to prove it.
The NGram shows a small use of 'angered' against 'angry' but zero baseline for 'angried'.
The OED lists only one reference for 'angried' and it is represented as 'obsolete' with its reference being 'angrieth' not, actually, 'angried.
1642 T. Fuller Holy State v. i. 358 Nothing angrieth her so much, as when modest men affect a deafnesse.
The word 'angered' is listed by the OED without it saying it is 'rare' or 'obsolete' yet it has no modern references for it (surprisingly) :
1881 Daily News 11 Aug. 2/2 A somewhat angered controversy took place across the table.
1883 Harper's Mag. Feb. 483/1 The young man became angered.
OED gives the meanings 'irritated, inflamed, flushed with rage'.
Looking at the list linked to in the OP, I suspect that there is a BrE/AmE preference showing up, but it would require a lot of research to prove it.
edited Nov 21 at 16:21
answered Nov 21 at 11:32
Nigel J
16.8k94281
16.8k94281
1
No sir, it is not one writer's dim remembering. If you go through my cited link, you will find lots of such usage by different writers.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 12:03
Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
– Nigel J
Nov 21 at 12:08
add a comment |
1
No sir, it is not one writer's dim remembering. If you go through my cited link, you will find lots of such usage by different writers.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 12:03
Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
– Nigel J
Nov 21 at 12:08
1
1
No sir, it is not one writer's dim remembering. If you go through my cited link, you will find lots of such usage by different writers.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 12:03
No sir, it is not one writer's dim remembering. If you go through my cited link, you will find lots of such usage by different writers.
– mahmud koya
Nov 21 at 12:03
Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
– Nigel J
Nov 21 at 12:08
Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
– Nigel J
Nov 21 at 12:08
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Your question is whether angried can be used in place of angry (which isn’t the same as angered) in your sample sentence. The other answers deal with the “standard and acceptable usage” part of your question. This answer deals with the portion in your title and in the bulk of your question text: whether one can be used in place of the other.
No, there is an important difference.
- No, actually I'm angry.
Being angry is purely an internal state. Although the context may indicate that there was a trigger for the anger, the wording doesn’t reference the trigger.
- No, actually I'm angried.
Being angried (or angered), on the other hand, references the trigger: it isn’t simply that you were angry, but that something made you so.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Your question is whether angried can be used in place of angry (which isn’t the same as angered) in your sample sentence. The other answers deal with the “standard and acceptable usage” part of your question. This answer deals with the portion in your title and in the bulk of your question text: whether one can be used in place of the other.
No, there is an important difference.
- No, actually I'm angry.
Being angry is purely an internal state. Although the context may indicate that there was a trigger for the anger, the wording doesn’t reference the trigger.
- No, actually I'm angried.
Being angried (or angered), on the other hand, references the trigger: it isn’t simply that you were angry, but that something made you so.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Your question is whether angried can be used in place of angry (which isn’t the same as angered) in your sample sentence. The other answers deal with the “standard and acceptable usage” part of your question. This answer deals with the portion in your title and in the bulk of your question text: whether one can be used in place of the other.
No, there is an important difference.
- No, actually I'm angry.
Being angry is purely an internal state. Although the context may indicate that there was a trigger for the anger, the wording doesn’t reference the trigger.
- No, actually I'm angried.
Being angried (or angered), on the other hand, references the trigger: it isn’t simply that you were angry, but that something made you so.
Your question is whether angried can be used in place of angry (which isn’t the same as angered) in your sample sentence. The other answers deal with the “standard and acceptable usage” part of your question. This answer deals with the portion in your title and in the bulk of your question text: whether one can be used in place of the other.
No, there is an important difference.
- No, actually I'm angry.
Being angry is purely an internal state. Although the context may indicate that there was a trigger for the anger, the wording doesn’t reference the trigger.
- No, actually I'm angried.
Being angried (or angered), on the other hand, references the trigger: it isn’t simply that you were angry, but that something made you so.
answered Nov 22 at 11:19
Lawrence
30.5k461107
30.5k461107
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I think it is a misspelling or a nonstandard form at best (as a pp of to anger) Its usage is really rare, see:
Google Books: angried
Google Books: angried vs angry
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I think it is a misspelling or a nonstandard form at best (as a pp of to anger) Its usage is really rare, see:
Google Books: angried
Google Books: angried vs angry
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I think it is a misspelling or a nonstandard form at best (as a pp of to anger) Its usage is really rare, see:
Google Books: angried
Google Books: angried vs angry
I think it is a misspelling or a nonstandard form at best (as a pp of to anger) Its usage is really rare, see:
Google Books: angried
Google Books: angried vs angry
edited Nov 21 at 12:43
answered Nov 21 at 11:09
user240918
23.2k865144
23.2k865144
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473930%2fis-angried-synonymous-with-angry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
To me it seems like an alternative spelling of "angered" -- i.e. when something has made you angry. As such it seems slightly different from "angry" which is what you are when something has angered you.
– neptun
Nov 21 at 12:59