Now, I don't know about you guys, but I can't naturally use "angry" as an adjective unless it's a more or less permanent state, or if it is distinguishing between two people. As in, the waiter who is always angry, or the waiter who is angry as opposed to the waiter who is calm. If I were speaking naturally*, I would actually chunk it, "The waiter was angry. He told them to get out of the restaurant." But the proposed sentence "The angry waiter told them to get out of the restaurant" means something different to me; it suggests that the waiter is always angry, as in he's an angry person. (I asked a friend who is a native-speaker of Spanish about the Spanish example, and she said it sounds wrong to her in Spanish too.)
*actually, if I were speaking naturally, I wouldn't have used the subjunctive there—I'd have said "if I was speaking naturally". But that is another issue entirely.
What about you guys? If you were talking about a waiter who had been calm and then gotten angry, could you naturally describe him as "the angry waiter" like in the sentence above? Go ahead and comment if you'd like; I'd like this to be a conversation. If you have trouble with comments, you can send me an email. I put a link to contact me up next to the "about" page, for any wug- or blog-related emails.
Given the context of the story, I would comfortably use the word "angry" as a temporary description for the waiter. I actually take the opposite perspective regarding "angry" as an adjective of permanence: If I was trying to describe a person who is always angry because of their personality, I would make an effort to make that permanence clear. Otherwise, I assume it to be temporary and situational. How interesting!
ReplyDelete