Is “angried” synonymous with “angry”?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|improve this question


















  • 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

















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|improve this question


















  • 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













up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





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?










share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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














  • 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










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




  1. used the word "angried" once in the whole book

  2. 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.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • 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


















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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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


















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.






share|improve this answer




























    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







    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "97"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      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

























      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




      1. used the word "angried" once in the whole book

      2. 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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      • 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















      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




      1. used the word "angried" once in the whole book

      2. 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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      • 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













      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




      1. used the word "angried" once in the whole book

      2. 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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      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




      1. used the word "angried" once in the whole book

      2. 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.







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Nov 22 at 12:16





















      New contributor




      neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered Nov 21 at 14:08









      neptun

      1964




      1964




      New contributor




      neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      neptun is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      • 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












      • @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












      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.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 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















      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.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 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













      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.






      share|improve this answer














      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      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














      • 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










      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.






      share|improve this answer

























        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.






        share|improve this answer























          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.






          share|improve this answer












          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 22 at 11:19









          Lawrence

          30.5k461107




          30.5k461107






















              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







              share|improve this answer



























                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







                share|improve this answer

























                  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







                  share|improve this answer














                  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








                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 21 at 12:43

























                  answered Nov 21 at 11:09









                  user240918

                  23.2k865144




                  23.2k865144






























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded



















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Morgemoulin

                      Scott Moir

                      Souastre