Have You Noticed: "Affect" vs. "Effect

  • Thread starter Thread starter honestrosewater
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the increasing use of "affect" instead of "effect," with participants noting a trend where "affect" is being used more frequently, sometimes incorrectly, in various contexts. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding these terms, as many English speakers do not fully grasp their distinct meanings. "Affect" is primarily used as a verb meaning to influence, while "effect" is used as a noun referring to a result. Some participants suggest that the observed increase in "affect" usage may stem from a shift in reading habits towards more formal writing, where "affect" is used correctly. The dialogue also touches on the importance of understanding these terms in scientific writing, where precision is crucial. Overall, the thread reflects a collective frustration with the misuse of these words and a desire for clarity in language.
honestrosewater
Gold Member
Messages
2,133
Reaction score
6
Why is everyone suddenly using "affect" instead of "effect"? I know it's language and blah blah it changes. But has anyone noticed this, or is it just me? I rarely ever used to see anyone use "affect", and now I see it all the time- when "effect" makes perfect sense.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In what instances? Sometimes "affect" is the correct word, and sometimes "effect" is the correct word. Naturally, most of the English speakers in the world have no idea that they are not the same word, so it can be pretty irritating if it's one of your pet peeves.

--J
 
Yeah Justin is right.
You're probably just seeing people using it in a sense where it is the correct word to use instead of affect.
Although I'd probably bank on the fact that it might be someone who just doesn't know the difference between to the two words.
 
Justin Lazear said:
In what instances? Sometimes "affect" is the correct word, and sometimes "effect" is the correct word. Naturally, most of the English speakers in the world have no idea that they are not the same word, so it can be pretty irritating if it's one of your pet peeves.

--J
Well, I guess using "affect" as a noun when they mean "effect". For instance, google "affect on"- over a million hits. Bah, I never paid much attention to the difference, but now it's on my list. No one taught us this in school. Or I was absent that day. Anyway, I'm not really talking about improper use, just that people are using "affect" more than usual. I'm seeing "effect" less and "affect" more.
 
You people ought to read books and stop thinking about all sorts of **** during the English classes.

Else,don't go to school,especially since it's not free,nor compulsory.

Daniel.
 
Note dex's meticulous attention to grammar during this specific post :-p
 
Soilwork said:
Yeah Justin is right.
You're probably just seeing people using it in a sense where it is the correct word to use instead of affect.
It does make sense that as I read more advanced writing, in a more formal setting, I would see "affect" more often, since I think a lot of people are more comfortable with "effect" and use it more often. I used "effect" more often myself, not really thinking about which was correct (until this morning).
 
I always pay attention to grammar.Spelling can be screwed up from time to time,but i may have the excuse of (English) not being my native language.:wink:

As for effect vs. affect,it's simply LAME.

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
You people ought to read books and stop thinking about all sorts of **** during the English classes.

Else,don't go to school,especially since it's not free,nor compulsory.

Daniel.
Grammar school is compulsory. :-p And it's something I noticed while I was reading books. And I'm checking to see if others have made the same observation. So :-p Of course, I appreciate your words of wisdom as always. :biggrin:
 
  • #10
Well, the next time you start examining the effects of your particle accelerator bunny exterminator on cute pink flying bunny rabbits and wish it could effect them more, don't come complaining to me when you drown in your own pool of rabbits.

--J
 
  • #11
Justin Lazear said:
Well, the next time you start examining the effects of your particle accelerator bunny exterminator on cute pink flying bunny rabbits and wish it could effect them more, don't come complaining to me when you drown in your own pool of rabbits.

--J

*wondering* Should I tell'im ? :rolleyes:

Affect (v. t.) To act upon; to produce an effect or change upon.

Daniel.

P.S.honestlyrosewater,I appreciate your kind words and your irony... :-p
 
  • #12
Don't worry, dex, it was intentional.

tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects

1. To bring into existence.

--J
 
  • #13
dextercioby said:
*wondering* Should I tell'im ?
Did you get it yet, dexter, or should we tell you?
 
  • #14
honestrosewater said:
Why is everyone suddenly using "affect" instead of "effect"? I know it's language and blah blah it changes. But has anyone noticed this, or is it just me? I rarely ever used to see anyone use "affect", and now I see it all the time- when "effect" makes perfect sense.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.

I've noticed that people misuse both word here all the time, thinking, I suppose, that they're interchangable, which they aren't. The confusion probably results from the obvious fact that the pronounciation is the same.

Did you know that "affect" is also a noun, with the accent on the first syllable?
 
  • #15
"Conan the Barbarian effected his entrance into the Temple of Doom by lopping off the high priest's head. This action affected the high priest's health in a grievous manner"
 
  • #16
zoobyshoe said:
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.

I've noticed that people misuse both word here all the time, thinking, I suppose, that they're interchangable, which they aren't. The confusion probably results from the obvious fact that the pronounciation is the same.

Did you know that "affect" is also a noun, with the accent on the first syllable?
Yes, but that was the only part of the definition I remembered reading, and I knew what "effect" meant, so I would just use "effect". It never bothered me and doesn't really bother me now. I had just noticed "affect" being used more than I had seen it used a couple years ago. This is probably just because I am reading more formal works where the mistake is less likely. So it was probably just because of a change in my reading habits, not a change in other people's writing habits.

Anyway, don't keep me hanging. What happens to the bunnies?

Oh, I didn't know the pronunciation. I never really use "affect" as a noun.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Some probably don't know that they are making the mistake (due to English as alternate [not necessarily 2nd] language)
Others because they just don't know the difference (English first language)

And probably more, out of laziness for not spellchecking their post because the figure the affect that their misuse of the words will not effect the posting community.
 
  • #18
honestrosewater said:
Yes, but that was the only part of the definition I remembered reading, and I knew what "effect" meant, so I would just use "effect". It never bothered me and doesn't really bother me now. I had just noticed "affect" being used more than I had seen it used a couple years ago. This is probably just because I am reading more formal works where the mistake is less likely. So it was probably just because of a change in my reading habits, not a change in other people's writing habits.

Oh, I didn't know the pronunciation. I never really use "affect" as a noun.
I am still not sure what you're pointing at. Could you go and get all the definitions of affect and effect in all their parts of speech and post them here for us, then point out the ones you see being mistaken for each other?
 
  • #19
From this example, it should be quite clear that the verbs have distinct usages:
arildno said:
"Conan the Barbarian effected his entrance into the Temple of Doom by lopping off the high priest's head. This action affected the high priest's health in a grievous manner"
 
  • #20
bross7 said:
And probably more, out of laziness for not spellchecking their post because the figure the affect[/color] that their misuse of the words will not effect[/color] the posting community.
Whoopsey! You need to check what "affect" means when used as a noun.

Edit: And what "effect" means when used as a verb.
 
  • #21
arildno said:
"Conan the Barbarian effected his entrance into the Temple of Doom by lopping off the high priest's head. This action affected the high priest's health in a grievous manner"
Yes, you have used them both to good effect.
 
  • #22
It was rather affected, though; strangely enough, however, it was the first sentence to pop into my head (does that make me psychotic??)
 
  • #23
:biggrin: lol, I am sure I am among those who are guilty of this grievous miscarriage of wordage.
 
  • #24
arildno said:
It was rather affected, though; strangely enough, however, it was the first sentence to pop into my head (does that make me psychotic??)

No, although it does suggest you might have a rather temperamental affect.
 
  • #25
Affection or affliction, what's the difference, really?
I guess I have one of those, at least.
 
  • #26
It doesn't make sense to just decide you're seeing one more than the other to determine if it's in some way wrong. Both are words, both have different meanings, and both are frequently misspelled as the other.

In a crude way of putting it, effect refers to the output side of things (think "cause and effect"); The effect of blasting the stereo was that people's hearing was damaged.

Affect refers to the receiving side of things. Those people's hearing was affected by the blasting stereo.

Affect can also refer to the way someone expresses an emotion: Sufferers of severe depression often display a flat affect.

And effect can refer to causing something to come into existence or to happen:
Blasting the car stereo effected hearing loss in an otherwise healthy group of people.

Note, in the above sentence, the direction is clear, hearing loss was caused by the blasting stereo. If I instead wrote, "Blasting the car stereo affected hearing loss in an otherwise healthy group of people," then direction is not clear. This could equally suggest the effect of the stereo was an improvement in hearing loss rather than a cause of hearing loss or a worsening of hearing loss. All it indicates is there was a change, but not the direction of that change. This is an incredibly important distinction in scientific writing, so since you're hanging around scientists here, you're around a group of writers who need to be more in tune with the two different meanings than the general public who is sloppy with their usage.
 
  • #27
arildno said:
Affection or affliction, what's the difference, really?
I guess I have one of those, at least.
Did you mean affection or affectation? Affection is caring for someone...I show affection for my friends by hugging them when I greet them. An affectation is a mannerism that's somewhat fake, such as someone who uses a snooty accent when talking to those he feels are beneath him in rank; to effect and affect if you will. :biggrin:

An affliction is something bad you have, like a disease. I think affliction fits best with that sentence that was the first to come to mind for you above. :smile:
 
  • #28
Yes, that's it: I'm afflicted by affectation; my wrist has gone all limp typing this..:cry:
 
  • #29
To supplement Moonbear's post-- the difference between 'effect' and 'affect' when used in discourse about causal relationships is suggested by their etymology. 'Effect' = ex + facere, loosely, 'to come out from,' vs. 'affect' = ad + facere, loosely, 'to make towards.' So an effect is an outcome of a causal process, and to affect is to cause or change or influence.
 
  • #30
arildno said:
Yes, that's it: I'm afflicted by affectation; my wrist has gone all limp typing this..:cry:
:smile: That's a rather nasty affliction of an affectation with which you have been affected; perhaps you should examine what effected it. :smile:
 
  • #31
Okay, third time's the charm. I am not confused about the correct usage. I looked it up this morning. Recently, I have seen "affect" used more often than I saw it used a few years ago. That's pretty much all I'm saying. I'm not saying I always see it used correctly. I'm just saying I see it used more often than I had in the past.
 
  • #32
Got that part? Now, I have also seen "effect" and its inflections used less often than I had in the past. Initially, I thought this was because people were starting to use "affect" instead of "effect". That is, a lot of people had changed their usage habits. But now I think it is just that I am reading stuff where "affect" is more often being used correctly. That is, my reading habits have changed. Before, I was seeing "effect" used incorrectly (as a verb), where "affect" was actually the correct verb. Now, I am seeing "affect" used as the correct verb. So people are probably still using the same words in the same cases; I am just reading the peolpe who use "affect" more often.
 
  • #33
I would assume "effect" to crop up more regularly than "affect" in technical literature; probably the other way around in novels.
 
  • #34
arildno said:
It was rather affected[/color], though; strangely enough, however, it was the first sentence to pop into my head (does that make me psychotic??)
What it makes you is: a master of all the forms of "affect" and "effect"!

I'll petition the administration to make you up a banner to that effect.

Edit: Oh, I see you mitigated the good effect of your post by later mistaking affection for affectation. We'll have to give you a smaller banner than previously planned.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
honestrosewater said:
Got that part?...

...I am just reading the peolpe who use "affect" more often.
In this case, then no to your original question. I haven't happened to notice this.
 
  • #36
honestrosewater said:
Okay, third time's the charm. I am not confused about the correct usage. I looked it up this morning. Recently, I have seen "affect" used more often than I saw it used a few years ago. That's pretty much all I'm saying. I'm not saying I always see it used correctly. I'm just saying I see it used more often than I had in the past.
Aha, I see! You're noticing people are now using "affect" correctly when in the past you saw them using "effect" incorrectly in its place. So, the noticeable difference is an improvement in proper word usage rather than an arbitrary switch from incorrectly using "effect" to incorrectly using "affect." Correct? :biggrin:
 
  • #37
arildno said:
I would assume "effect" to crop up more regularly than "affect" in technical literature; probably the other way around in novels.
I'm comparing the occurrence of affect at time 1 to the occurrence of affect at time 2. And the occurrence of effect at time 1 to the occurrence of effect at time 2. I'm not comparing the occurence of affect to occurrence of effect.
Could someone hijack this thread please? Tell us about Norway, arildno?
 
  • #38
Moonbear said:
Aha, I see! You're noticing people are now using "affect" correctly when in the past you saw them using "effect" incorrectly in its place. So, the noticeable difference is an improvement in proper word usage rather than an arbitrary switch from incorrectly using "effect" to incorrectly using "affect." Correct? :biggrin:
Hallelujah! Yes. At least, that's what I think has happened.
Actually, I could simplify it to really crystalize the idea.
Every author at level 0 always uses 'effect' and never uses 'affect'.
Every author at level 1 sometimes uses 'effect' and sometimes uses 'affect'.
So I have moved from reading books by level 0 authors to level 1 authors. The authors haven't changed; I have changed. Okay, that's it, I'm done.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
honestrosewater said:
Could someone hijack this thread please? Tell us about Norway, arildno?
:smile: You should know we love to discuss grammar absolutely to death around here! And there seems to be an inverse correlation between obtaining permission to hijack a thread and actually hijacking it. :biggrin: You've doomed yourself to this topic forever! :devil:

Though, I suppose the confusion about the meaning of your OP suggests an answer to your question in the first place. We didn't all jump in saying, "Oh, I know just what you mean!" So, at this point, you've probably surmised correctly that it's a change in your reading habits, not an overwhelming shift in people's writing habits, that has led to your observation.
 
  • #40
Moonbear said:
:smile: You should know we love to discuss grammar absolutely to death around here! And there seems to be an inverse correlation between obtaining permission to hijack a thread and actually hijacking it. :biggrin: You've doomed yourself to this topic forever! :devil:
As long as I don't have to try to explain my OP anymore, I could give 'affect' a deeper look now that I'll be using it more often. But I'm too tired now.
 
  • #41
Moonbear said:
than the general public who is sloppy with their usage.
? :confused:

Or is that too off-topic? What rules are in effect here?
 
  • #42
Danger said:
? :confused:

Or is that too off-topic? What rules are in effect here?
There could be more than one general public... eh...
 
  • #43
honestrosewater said:
There could be more than one general public... eh...
Then it would be '...the general publics, which are sloppy...'. :-p
 
  • #44
Danger said:
? :confused:

Or is that too off-topic? What rules are in effect here?

That was pretty bad, huh? :redface: I clearly didn't have enough coffee before attempting to discuss grammar yesterday! :bugeye:
 
  • #45
Moonbear said:
That was pretty bad, huh? :redface:
That was so funny in context that I actually sort of suspected that you did it on purpose.

(It still might not be too late to claim that.)
 
  • #46
Okay, my gurus of grammar, here's a real problem. I haven't settled on a way of dealing with quotes. I want something that's clear without interrupting the flow of the sentence, and I really want to be consistent. Some examples:

You should say no to drugs.
You should say "no" to drugs.
You should say, "no," to drugs.
You should say "No" to drugs.
??

"I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren" is my favorite example of structural ambiguity.
"I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren," is my favorite example of structural ambiguity.
My favorite example of structural ambiguity is "I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren."
??

Can you ask "Are you the liar?"?
Can you ask, "Are you the liar?"
You cannot ask "Are you the liar?".
You cannot ask "Are you the liar?"
Will they say "I am the liar."?
??

What would you guys do?
 
  • #47
My 0.02$

First,i'd go for "You should say <<no>> to drugs".

For the second,i'd vote for "<<I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren>> is my favorite example of structural ambiguity" AND "My favorite example of structural ambiguity is <<I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren>>".(Notice that the dot at the end of the phrase is NOT inside the quote).

For the last,the first two are incorrect (the second has an extra comma).The last is incorrect (the dot inside the quote is wrong).I don't know about the other 2,though.

Daniel.
 
  • #48
dextercioby said:
My 0.02$

First,i'd go for "You should say <<no>> to drugs".

For the second,i'd vote for "<<I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren>> is my favorite example of structural ambiguity" AND "My favorite example of structural ambiguity is <<I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren>>".(Notice that the dot at the end of the phrase is NOT inside the quote).

For the last,the first two are incorrect (the second has an extra comma).The last is incorrect (the dot inside the quote is wrong).I don't know about the other 2,though.

Daniel.
the "<<" are quotes?
_____
I think I need a thorough treatment. So I should consider whether the quote is a phrase or clause, where it occurs in the sentence, and what the end punctuation would normally be (for clauses).

If the quote occurs at the beginning of the sentence, I would capitalize it. That's about all I'm set on so far. I need to figure out whether to place a comma before a quote, whether to capitalize it in other situations, and how to punctuate the end.

"Clause" sentence
"Phrase" sentence

Sentence "clause" sentence
Sentence "phrase" sentence

Sentence "clause"
Sentence "phrase"
 
  • #49
Alrighty, let's give this a try.
honestrosewater said:
You should say no to drugs.
I'd stick with that one, especially since the message doesn't need to be literally requiring everyone to use the word "no," but anything that generally means the same thing.

"I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren" is my favorite example of structural ambiguity.
"I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren," is my favorite example of structural ambiguity.
My favorite example of structural ambiguity is "I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren."
I like the quote! :smile:
Okay, none of the above. I'd go with the following.
My favorite example of structural ambiguity is: "I will wear no clothes to distinguish me from my Christian brethren."
Or maybe the colon should just be a comma.
But I can't be entirely sure on that. I'm not sure what Daniel is getting at with dots inside quotes? Punctuation at the end of a phrase always belongs inside the quote marks.

Can you ask, "Are you the liar?"
That would be okay. Or:
You cannot ask, "Are you the liar?"
Or:
Will they say, "I am the liar?" Though, if you are asking the question ("I" referring to yourself, not to the person asking the question), it is more correct to write:
Will they say I am the liar? (And yes, technically, I should have put the entire statement in quotes, but then that would be confusing for the purpose here, since you wouldn't put it in quotes.)
 
  • #50
Hehehe... yeah, I understand what you mean. I have been leaning towards leaving out extra punctuation because I think the quotation marks do enough to set off the quote from the rest of the sentence. For instance:

But the statement "This sentence is false" causes problems.
But the statement, "This sentence is false," causes problems.

I think the first is enough and the second too much. I'm not sure either way about punctuating a quote at the end of a sentence. But I will consider your suggestions and take a look at the variations. Thanks. :smile:
 

Similar threads

How does surface irregularity affect boundary layers?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system?
2
Replies
98
Views
2K
Biochemical effects of switching to dairy-free foods
Replies
3
Views
4K
Ok, I am outraged at my local Publix
Replies
9
Views
3K
Getting Ignored is Worst Type of Rejection
Replies
17
Views
7K
"Heuristics" for Casimir: how close to reality do they have to be?
Replies
4
Views
1K
I think my parents have raised me wrong and it's backfired
Replies
24
Views
3K
I What happens to time on the hands of a clock?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Other Potential Effects of Recent AI Developments on Physics?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Have you noticed deliberate microexpressions in TV personalities?
Replies
3
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top