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
    2 days ago

















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
    2 days ago













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 2 days ago









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
    2 days ago














  • 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
    2 days ago








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
2 days ago




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
2 days ago










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
    2 days ago












  • @mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
    – neptun
    yesterday










  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    yesterday


















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
    2 days ago










  • Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
    – Nigel J
    2 days ago


















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
        2 days ago












      • @mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
        – neptun
        yesterday










      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday















      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
        2 days ago












      • @mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
        – neptun
        yesterday










      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday













      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 yesterday





















      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 2 days ago









      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
        2 days ago












      • @mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
        – neptun
        yesterday










      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday


















      • Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
        – mahmud koya
        2 days ago












      • @mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
        – neptun
        yesterday










      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday
















      Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
      – mahmud koya
      2 days ago






      Ngram results show its usages even in 2016, 2011, 1999, 1960 etc. Please check the citation link in the question.
      – mahmud koya
      2 days ago














      @mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
      – neptun
      yesterday




      @mahmudkoya I did already adress that, but now I made it even more explicit.
      – neptun
      yesterday












      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
      yesterday




      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
      yesterday




      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
      yesterday




      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
      yesterday












      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
        2 days ago










      • Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
        – Nigel J
        2 days ago















      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
        2 days ago










      • Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
        – Nigel J
        2 days ago













      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 2 days ago

























      answered 2 days ago









      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
        2 days ago










      • Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
        – Nigel J
        2 days ago














      • 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
        2 days ago










      • Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
        – Nigel J
        2 days ago








      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
      2 days ago




      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
      2 days ago












      Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
      – Nigel J
      2 days ago




      Understood. I have looked at the link more closely and edited my answer accordingly.
      – Nigel J
      2 days ago










      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 yesterday









          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 2 days ago

























                  answered 2 days ago









                  user240918

                  23.3k864143




                  23.3k864143






























                       

                      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

                      Paul Cézanne

                      UIScrollView CustomStickyHeader Resize height generates problems when scroll is too fast

                      Angular material date-picker (MatDatepicker) auto completes the date on focus out