Angry with or at

[irmamar]

Is there any difference between using at or with?

I have this sentence:

People angry with the deterioration of the agricultural economy.

Thanks.

[Perikles]

I think there is no difference, except angry with a situation, and angry at a particular person would be usual. .

I think angry with is always correct.

[poli]

Angry about is also a term frequently used if the anger is not directed to a person.

[irmamar]

Thank you.

[JPablo]

Random House gives,
(usually fol. by at, with, or about): to be angry at the dean; to be angry about the snub.) (snub = desaire)
Oxford gives these examples,
to be angry ABOUT/AT something: I’m really angry about losing those keys = me da mucha rabia haber perdido las llaves; there’s no point getting so angry about it = no vale la pena enfadarse tanto por eso;
I’m very angry at the way I’ve been treated = estoy muy enfadada por cómo me han tratado.

[irmamar]

Thanks, JP.

[JPablo]

You're welcome!

[vita32]

Originally Posted by irmamar

Is there any difference between using at or with?

I have this sentence:

People angry with the deterioration of the agricultural economy.

Thanks.

Just a side note: The word "mad" is usually used also instead of "angry" but as far as I know "mad" is always used with either "at" or "about" and never followed by "with". I could be wrong.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by vita32

Just a side note: The word "mad" is usually used also instead of "angry" but as far as I know "mad" is always used with either "at" or "about" and never followed by "with". I could be wrong.

I think you are wrong. I could say "she's mad with me" and "she's mad at me" both meaning "she's angry with me". But "she's mad about John" means she is in love with John, or something like that. This is all colloquial BrE English, so possibly different elsewhere.

[vita32]

Originally Posted by Perikles

I think you are wrong. I could say "she's mad with me" and "she's mad at me" both meaning "she's angry with me". But "she's mad about John" means she is in love with John, or something like that. This is all colloquial BrE English, so possibly different elsewhere.

Yes, colloquial meaning of a word varies from coutry to country (state to state). I just have not heard "mad with....." where I live. I'm sure it's used there in England, as you say. It's good to know.

[CrOtALiTo]

Well I didn't know about the At word uses in that word until now, already because casually I use the word With always.

Then I can use the word At without exist any difference between them for exampl.

I'm angry at México for the war made at the drugs.

In that sentence I don't need write with verb or the at uses is incorrect there.

I will appreciate your advice.

[wafflestomp]

As someone from the northeast US, I've never heard "mad with" in my life. That sounds very awkward... mostly in an informal conversation, at least around here, you'll always here "mad at". Angry at or angry with is a more formal term, like "The United States is angry at the North Koreans for launching the artillery" or the same thing but using "angry with". Just running sentences in my head, "Mom is angry with John for breaking the vase" sounds sort of formal like something you'd read in a book, same with "Mom is angry at John for breaking the base". "Mom is mad at John for breaking the vase" sounds more normal to me.
We are very simple with what we say in the US, the stereotypes with how lazy of a people we are, are for the most part very true .

[vita32]

Originally Posted by wafflestomp

As someone from the northeast US, I've never heard "mad with" in my life. That sounds very awkward... mostly in an informal conversation, at least around here, you'll always here "mad at". Angry at or angry with is a more formal term, like "The United States is angry at the North Koreans for launching the artillery" or the same thing but using "angry with". Just running sentences in my head, "Mom is angry with John for breaking the vase" sounds sort of formal like something you'd read in a book, same with "Mom is angry at John for breaking the base". "Mom is mad at John for breaking the vase" sounds more normal to me.
We are very simple with what we say in the US, the stereotypes with how lazy of a people we are, are for the most part very true .

@wafflestomp, at least we're in agreement about the use of "mad" that it is never followed by "with" based on what I hear when interacting with people here in one of the Southern States (Tennessee). Is it possible that other states in the U.S. uses "mad with"? Please speak up

[Ramos]

I've heard "mad with/about" but it refers to madly in love with. Its kind of a short way of saying it. I've never heard someone say she's mad with anger at John. It just seems like a long, unnecessary way of saying something.

And to the original post, I think they both are equally correct except in some weird situations. But to me, to be angry with seems a lot more formal. I could see it being on Google News as "The U.S. is Angry With North Korea" not the other way around. In just a normal conversation using angry at is the safer bet.

Although in everyday conversations nobody i talk with really uses angry. It's always replaced with mad, angry puts a more serious tone.

"She's mad at John"
"She's angry at John"

She's angry sounds a lot more serious, but that's just how I hear it used.

Originally Posted by CrOtALiTo

Well I didn't know about the At word uses in that word until now, already because casually I use the word With always.

Then I can use the word At without exist any difference between them for example.

I'm angry at México for the war made at the drugs.
I'm angry at Mexico for the war with drugs

In that sentence I don't need write with verb or the at uses is incorrect there.

I will appreciate your advice.

I'm not exactly amazing with English grammar, but they are not normally interchangeable. Only in certain situations with verbs.
She's angry with/at
She's mad with/at

In fact, I can't really think of any other examples of them being interchangeable. With and at are separate words and shouldn't be thought of as the same. They may have somewhat similar definitions but if used as the same will really mess up the fluidity of a sentence.

[CrOtALiTo]

Originally Posted by vita32

@wafflestomp, at least we're in agreement about the use of "mad" that it is never followed by "with" based on what I hear when interacting with people here in one of the Southern States (Tennessee). Is it possible that other states in the U.S. uses "mad with"? Please speak up

Yes you are right about your commentary.

Then never I have heard before about the at uses at least in that phrases, in essence really it's interesting to knows something different in English.

Therefore, I believe it's important to leaves clear all the points spoken here in this post, it's or not the correct the at uses in that kind phrases.

Thank you very much.