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?
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
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:
There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:
Apart from these, there were some results which had in common that they
For instance:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
