English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Possible Duplicate:
“Angry with” vs. “angry at” vs. “angry on”

Can the preposition at in the following sentence be replaced by with?

I'm mad at you.

In my mother tongue we say that we are mad with someone, not at.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Matt E. Эллен, JSBձոգչ, Andrew Leach, Daniel, Mark Beadles Jul 19 '12 at 16:47

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

Off topic: when we fix the formatting/title/spelling/punctuation/tags in your post, please take note and format your future posts accordingly. Thank you. – RegDwigнt Jul 19 '12 at 12:53
Ok, my bad. I will take it in my future posts :D – utxeee Jul 19 '12 at 13:39
Mad is a hard word anyway, since it has different meanings in British English and American English. – Marcus_33 Jul 19 '12 at 13:48
It has both senses in American English, but it's most likely to mean angry unless it comes with a polar adverb like absolutely. In the angry sense, it uses at for the person and about for the reason. Mad with, on the other hand, can only be used for the reason, and the meaning is insane, not angry. Mad with desire is fine, but not *mad with Bill. – John Lawler Jul 19 '12 at 14:17
I think this question should be reopened. In British English "mad with somebody" is just fine. – Alex B. Jul 19 '12 at 17:23
up vote 1 down vote accepted

In English you are "mad at" a person, institution, etc. You wouldn't say you are "mad with" them.

Inconsistently, you are "angry with" a person, not "angry at" them.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.