英和和英

名詞

angerer (plural angerers) (rare)

1. One who makes someone angry.
   • 1845 January 12, [William Cox Bennett], “Dedication”, in Songs, Ballads, &c., Greenwich, Kent: […] Henry S. Richardson, […], →OCLC, page 8:

     High thoughts have walked beside me in the world / That, when my passions woke, have from me torn / Harsh words that, on my angerers, I had hurled, / And taught me scorn of hate and hate of scorn.

   • 1974, Susan Higley Russell, Insult, Aggressive Modeling, and Vicarious Reinforcement as Determinants of Adult Aggression, Stanford, Calif.: Department of Communication, Stanford University, →OCLC, page 87:

     Under these conditions, in which the instigator acts as model of the administration of shocks as well as an angerer, it is not particularly surprising that the subject chooses to respond in kind and to ignore the reward measure.

   • 1977, Tony Buzan, “Angering the Opponent”, in How to Make the Most of Your Mind, London: Colt Books, →ISBN, chapter 9 (Logic and Analysis), page 145:

     This technique of arguing, although basically dishonest, is astonishingly successful. The “angerer” finds out things that will especially annoy his opponent, begins to emphasize them, and as a result the opponent, emotionally upset, argues badly. The answer to this kind of illogical argumentative approach, is simply to realize that it is being used. The person who is being emotionally attacked will realize that the “angerer” himself must feel threatened or weak.

   • 1979, Albert L. Lloyd, “Strong Processives”, in Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity (Studies in Language Companion Series; 4), Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, →ISBN, →ISSN, part II (Application: The Gothic Verb), chapter II (Aspect and Predicational Types in Gothic), page 186:

     If someone 'angers', 'offends', 'troubles', or 'frightens' someone else, the predication is often felt to concentrate on the behavior of the angerer (offender, troubler, frightener), rather than on the transitory feelings in the object.

2. One who holds anger.
   • 2007, Nadia Khalil Bradley, Origins of Truth: Words That Will Awaken You to the Truth of Your Heart, Pasadena, Calif.: Three Corners Press, →ISBN, pages 377 (part 2 (The Book of Christ), chapter 15 (I Am Here)) and 594 (part 3 (The Book of Truth), chapter 5 (The Culminations), “Seekers” section):

     I did not shake as vigorously as you do when there is ill will Nadia, however I miracled the onlooker into a path of reflection, which was very dangerous, as you are noticing that reflection of self(s) before you brings to you love or anger. I was in the sameness. However, I would go to God and I would be shown the angerers and my role in their angers. […] Speak of love and you will find listeners. Speak of hope and you will find love. Speak of love and you will find angerers. Speak of love and some will say you are silly.

   • 2015, R. Venkatachalam, “Managing Anger (A justified cause not withstanding not getting anger)”, in Thirukkural - Translation - Explanation: A Life Skills Coaching Approach, Partridge India, →ISBN, paragraph 310 and notes 91 and 92:

     Limitless angerers are as good as dead / With no rage men are on par those in sainthood.

     91 Angerers is the term I have coined to denote persons who hold anger.
     92 Dead in the sense they are totally out of touch with their soul presenting a picture of human being without a soul.

   • 2017, Jerome Gellman, “Gender and Mystical Experience of God”, in Mystical Experience of God: A Philosophical Inquiry (Ashgate Philosophy of Religion Series), Aldershot, Hampshire; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing, →ISBN, page 121:

     Now let’s see what Maimonides’ doctrine excludes from the imitation of God. While there are biblical passages in which God is presented as acting vengefully or angrily, these do not describe God as possessing the character trait of being an ‘avenger’ or as it were an ‘angerer’, a person of anger. Therefore for Maimonides these descriptions are not candidates for the doctrine of imitatio dei. We are not called on to imitate God’s ‘angry’ or ‘vengeful’ acts