Two things: Angry vs. mad / there's

Question

1. My husband has this issue about my saying that I'm "mad at" him. Healways corrects me with "angry with." But I can't find anything that says that I'm wrong. Plus, "angry WITH" doesn't make sense to me since he's not always angry back. Thus, I'm not doing anything "with" him but, rather, "at" him.
2. I am horrified by the number of times each DAY that I hear peopleusing "there's" with a plural predicate. It's in writing and speech every single day. It's in newspapers and magazine. And I've even caught myself doing it because I hear it so often. "There's eight people running for the office of mayor." Keep your eyes/ears open and you'll see/hear it regularly. Why, why, why? I think it's a lazy thing. It's quicker and easier than saying "There are," and no one else is correcting them. Stop the madness!!!

Usenet · Accepted Answer

kerrysuz typed thus:
[nq:1]1. My husband has this issue about my saying that I'm "mad at" him. He always corrects me with "angry ... sense to me since he's not always angry back. Thus, I'm not doing anything "with" him but, rather, "at" him.[/nq]
"mad at" is slang for "angry with". You can't rationalise or anlayse prepositions - in English we say "get into the train", but the French say "get onto the train". Both versions sound strange to the other.

You could try not getting angry with your husband, then you wouldn't have to worry about the words.

David
==

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]kerrysuz typed thus:[/nq]
[nq:2]1. My husband has this issue about my saying that ... I'm not doing anything "with" him but, rather, "at" him.[/nq]
[nq:1]"mad at" is slang for "angry with". You can't rationalise or anlayse prepositions - in English we say "get into the train", but the French say "get onto the train". Both versions sound strange to the other.[/nq]
I would get into the carriage, but get on the train. m.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]1. My husband has this issue about my saying that I'm "mad at" him.[/nq]
He should get over it.
[nq:1]2. I am horrified by the number of times each DAY that I hear people using "there's" with a plural predicate.[/nq]
You should get over it.
Adrian

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]kerrysuz typed thus:[/nq]
[nq:2]1. My husband has this issue about my saying that ... I'm not doing anything "with" him but, rather, "at" him.[/nq]
[nq:1]"mad at" is slang for "angry with". You can't rationalise or anlayse prepositions - in English we say "get into the train", but the French say "get onto the train". Both versions sound strange to the other.[/nq]
I'm English and I say 'get on the train'. 'get into the train' sounds weird to me.
I thought 'mad at' was the American version of the British 'angry with'. Though I hear 'angry at' from time to time around here.
John Dean
Oxford

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]kerrysuz typed thus:[/nq]
[nq:2]1. My husband has this issue about my saying that ... I'm not doing anything "with" him but, rather, "at" him.[/nq]
[nq:1]"mad at" is slang for "angry with". You can't rationalise or anlayse prepositions - in English we say "get into the train", but the French say "get onto the train". Both versions sound strange to the other.[/nq]
In a search of current general dictionaries on the Internet, I was unable to find any which labeled "mad" in the sense of "angry" as being slang. I found only two which labeled it as informal, both British, The Collins English Dictionary at
http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=mad

and the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary at

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=47970&dict=CALD

So the common idea among Americans that "mad" is not used in British English in this sense proves to be false.
As for the American dictionaries, of those which adhere to the "popular tradition" in listing the order of definitions that is, which list the most popular usage of a word first two of them, the AHD4 and the Encarta, list the "angry" definition first. One, the dictionary at www.infoplease.com , which is based upon the *Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary,* 2nd ed., does not.
[nq:1]You could try not getting angry with your husband, then you wouldn't have to worry about the words. David ==[/nq]
If his objection to "mad" in the sense of "angry" is that "mad" is somehow nonstandard when used in that sense, he is simply wrong. In that case, I say go ahead and be mad at him.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Usenet · Answer

Raymond S. Wise typed thus:
[nq:2]kerrysuz typed thus: "mad at" is slang for "angry with". ... onto the train". Both versions sound strange to the other.[/nq]
[nq:1]In a search of current general dictionaries on the Internet, I was unable to find any which labeled "mad" in ... labeled it as informal, both British, The Collins English Dictionary* at and the *Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary at [/nq]
I suppose we would have to discuss the nature of the difference between "slang" and "informal". Clearly, "mad" in this case does not mean insane.
[nq:1]So the common idea among Americans that "mad" is not used in British English in this sense proves to be false.[/nq]
Agreed. It's not unfamiliar in UK English.

David
==

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]1. My husband has this issue about my saying that I'm "mad at" him. He always corrects me with "angry ... sense to me since he's not always angry back. Thus, I'm not doing anything "with" him but, rather, "at" him.[/nq]
Idioms don't usually make sense when you try to analyze them. There's nothing wrong with "mad at" in colloquial speech, but "angry with" would be more appropriate in a formal context or in writing.
[nq:1]2. I am horrified by the number of times each DAY that I hear people using "there's" with a plural predicate.[/nq]
(snip)
See the current thread entitled "there is/there are" for an ample discussion of the plural "there's".

Odysseus

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I thought 'mad at' was the American version of the British 'angry with'. Though I hear 'angry at' from time to time around here.[/nq]
I watch "Sheep in the Big City" on Cartoon Network whenever I can take some time out of my busy schedule. One of the humorous characters in it is an evil scientist, who speaks with an Indian accent and who is partial to using the progressive tense most of the time when it isn't actually required. Besides many other things, one that infuriates the scientist most(1) is the narrator's calling him "mad scientist", upon which the scientist almost always screams: "Angry! Angry Scientist."

Note:
(1) Should "most" rather precede "infuriate"?

Ayaz Ahmed Khan

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I thought 'mad at' was the American version of the British 'angry with'. Though I hear 'angry at' from time to time around here.[/nq]
[nq:1]I watch "Sheep in the Big City" on Cartoon Network whenever I can take some time out of my busy ... him "mad scientist", upon which the scientist almost always screams: "Angry! Angry Scientist." Note: (1) Should "most" rather precede "infuriate"?[/nq]
I prefer it the way you've written it.

wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]kerrysuz typed thus: "mad at" is slang for "angry with". ... onto the train". Both versions sound strange to the other.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm English and I say 'get on the train'. 'get into the train' sounds weird to me. I thought 'mad at' was the American version of the British 'angry with'. Though I hear 'angry at' from time to time around here.[/nq]
Purists, or something, in the US don't like using "mad" because it means crazy. Big deal. Everyone in the US knows what is meant. But if it were a formal report, a medical history or court papers, I'd definetly use "angry at" or "angry with".
"With" doesn't mean "mutual" here, any more than "I'm fed up with him" means he is fed up with me.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years

Two things: Angry vs. mad / there's

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions