meaningmeaning-in-contextword-meaning
In the OALD article "annoyance" the following sample sentence is given:
His behaviour caused great annoyance to his colleagues.
In the same article, the meaning of annoyance is defined as "the feeling of being slightly angry". Following this definition, great annoyance is simply anger.
So, why to speak of "great annoyance" instead of
His behaviour caused (great) anger to his colleagues.
What are the stylistic and semantic differences between the two sample sentences above?
Technically, the first definition, as being what is indicated; in that capacity: An officer of the law, as such, is entitled to respect, is correct. It's what has just been indicated by the preceding passage/text.
It simply means 'as a result,' 'because of this,' 'thus,' 'therefore,' etc.
If you want to define it in terms of to indicate, then it literally means as indicated by what was just said, or as a result of this.
But what about in that capacity? If capacity means position; function; role, then I'm guessing this part of definition a does not apply?
It does apply generally speaking. In that capacity, the original origins of the phrase caused it to invoke physical helplessness.
Capacity references the state of being limb-less and being carried around in a basket, which is mentioned in the sentence before it. That capacity invokes feelings of helplessness when the narrator thinks of the idiom basket case. In other words, that idiom invokes feelings of helplessness when thought of in the capacity of being limb-less and unable to move.
You're taking the definition of this transition phrase way too literally.
This is tricky. Conjunctions and prepositions are among the most difficult meanings for semanticists to describe objectively, and this is why they often have the longest entries in dictionaries.
Note that in the previous sentence, between would not have worked in place of among.
Between implicitly suggests a cline or planes of possibilities - it can be an n-dimensional plane, and whatever it is you're talking about lies somewhere in relation to other, points on it.
The very first sense of 'between' on Collins echoes this sentiment:
- at a point or in a region intermediate to two other points in space, times, degrees, etc
This is likely why you have intuited that between seems to suggest a star topology in network parlance.
Among(st), on the other hand, is subtly different - it merely suggests a relationship to other things, without making claims to where it stands. If you consider a scatter plot, you could say that any of the points lies amongst others.
There is the possible exception of outliers and those points which lie on the edge of the groups, but that becomes a much more difficult issue to manage, akin to Sorites Paradox. My response to that is that the following sentence seems perfectly grammatical and sensible:
He was the smartest by far among those students in his age group.
The definition for among(st) on Collins suggests a couple of relationships:
- in the midst of
- in the group (of)
Of course, definitions can quickly become circular - that is, how does "in the midst of" differ from "between"? In the midst of seems to invoke a sense of positioning, rather than just that of relationships in general. The positioning can be based on anything, really, but among seems more felicitous when used in the description of vague constellations of meaning and relations, and between in those that are a bit more explicit.
"In the group of", on the other hand, is a much cleaner relationship.
Overall, the difference between between and among seems to be a fuzzy one - in the preceding clause, among would not have worked in place of between. I would say that between is better-suited for more explicit relationships, and among(st) for messier, more vague constellations of relations.
In the case of your two examples, I would say that the first means that you're comparing "[to be] not invited" with other forms. That is, "[to be] not invited" vs form-1, "[to be] not invited" vs form-2, etc.
If the question had read "what are the differences in meaning amongst negated forms (for example [to be] not invited)?", between/among(st) would both work well.
Best Answer
Being annoyed is different from being angry. If I am angry at someone, I might yell at them. If I am annoyed, I might just roll my eyes and shake my head. If I am greatly annoyed, I might exaggerate the eye-rolling and head-shaking, but it's still not the same as being angry.
Naturally this depends on context and personality. There are people who yell even when they are only annoyed. There are people who don't yell even when they are furious.
In addition, "annoyed" can be a diplomatic substitute for "anger". In a professional environment it is often inappropriate to be or act angry, so instead we use "annoyed" (or "upset") to downplay the severity of the emotion.
For this reason we can only guess what "great annoyance" actually means. More context is needed to understand what actions resulted from the annoyance of his colleagues. Only then we can tell whether the author is downplaying a more serious emotion (like anger), or if it means the colleagues simply rolled their eyes and shook their heads frequently and intensely.