Talk:fire in anger

RFC discussion: July 2012–November 2017
Please bear in mind that I have no experience of Wiktionary procedure. However, I don't see how this page is considered correct: Bob.Briscoe (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Given the archived discussion below, the scope should be 'in anger' generally, not 'fire in anger'. And 'in anger' should not redirect to 'fire in anger'. The meaning of the phrase 'in anger' is distinct from that expected by putting 'in' together with 'anger'. But this meaning is not specific to the verb to 'fire'. The Etmology seems to come from the military roots of the phrase, but the phrase is no longer specific to military usage. See https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/30939/is-used-in-anger-a-britishism-for-something
 * 2) The reference to the BBC World Service Q&A should also be removed, Because the answer given there is at best misleading. It gives an example of 'fire in anger' where the context implies the shooter is angry. But then it draws the over-generalized conclusion that 'fire in anger' in a non-military context implies the shooter is angry. This reference should perhaps be replaced with one from the above StackExchange answers.

Tagged but not listed. I kinda see where the entry is going, though is it only used with 'to fire'? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think 'fire' is the only verb that can be used with this. You can also raise your voice in anger, growl in anger and so on. 20:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In football (soccer) I've heard of 'kick a ball in anger' (kick a ball during a match, as opposed to in training). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just RfD this verb + adjunct expression? If someone can produce citations that show it to be something other than fire + in anger, good. I also rather doubt that in anger is inclusion-worthy. There is a use of in anger meaning something like "for real" (as opposed to "for school", "for play", and especially, "for practice"). Perhaps this entry should be moved to [[in anger]] and cleaned up there. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like "in anger" has a specific military definition that anger wouldn't cover. The definition should be at in anger, rather than here, because it may take other verbs. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've change my mind and agree, but, as MG pointed out, it's a bit broader than military, certainly including competitive sports. I could even imagine it being used in business. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also do something 'in' other emotions... in fear, in frustration... 21:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But the point is, as the usage note says, that "fire in anger" doesn't actually necessarily imply the emotion of anger; "in anger" seems to be a military technical term meaning "with intent to kill, cause damage, etc." regardless of the emotional state of the person firing. —Angr 22:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that almost always the meaning of in anger is recoverable from its components. To me the use that the contributor of this entry and MG have in mind is a bit different. Anger does not mean "seriousness" or "a state of intensive motivation". At MWOnline, usually quite inclusive of senses, only two definitions appear: "a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism" and "rage". Our definition at [[anger]] does not include this either. As User:Angr points out, an individual soldier need not be angry to fire a shot in anger. Perhaps the definition of anger could be stretched by personifying the forces at war and imputing anger to the personifications. I also don't think that anger has this sense with other prepositions (not from, because of, or out of, for example) nor as subject or object of a verb. The periphrasis "in a state of anger" also does not yield this sense. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good now --Spreaderofwords (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)