affect or effect

How do you know which one to use? I rarely ever use 'affect' - always effect. As someone with an A GCSE in English, perhaps I am outlining where the system is going wrong

Retard

deary me.

Easiest way to explain is what the dictionary says:

AFFECT –verb (used with object)

1. to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.

Generally "affect" means to influence someone/something whilst "effect" is the result of something.

Gotcha. Don't you find before using the word you have to think, hmm....

Retard

That didn't affect me.

That didn't affect me.

Sadly, IMHO, texting and the internet have made us very lazy when it comes to grammar and the proper used of our language. The basic premise seems to be "as long as I am understood, the rules don`t matter". Maybe this is right, but if it is the way that things are going, I find it very sad. As you have shown, it really doesn`t take much effort to find out the correct way of doing things.

Sadly, IMHO, texting and the internet have made us very lazy when it comes to grammar and the proper used of our language. The basic premise seems to be "as long as I am understood, the rules don`t matter". Maybe this is right, but if it is the way that things are going, I find it very sad. As you have shown, it really doesn`t take much effort to find out the correct way of doing things.

i didnt read that coz its 2 long.

Sadly, IMHO, texting and the internet have made us very lazy when it comes to grammar and the proper used of our language. The basic premise seems to be "as long as I am understood, the rules don`t matter". Maybe this is right, but if it is the way that things are going, I find it very sad. As you have shown, it really doesn`t take much effort to find out the correct way of doing things.

LBOIT (Little bit of irony there)

Language evolves and the language you now consider correct is a simplified easier version of the English that was spoken just a few decades ago. If it has been okay for you to follow the trend and go with a more fashionable version of the language, why is it sad when other people do the same?

LBOIT (Little bit of irony there)

Language evolves and the language you now consider correct is a simplified easier version of the English that was spoken just a few decades ago. If it has been okay for you to follow the trend and go with a more fashionable version of the language, why is it sad when other people do the same?

Like everyone else I use some modernisms, americanisms and shorthand (and the odd typo) etc., but I do try, generally, to stick to the rules that were taught when I was at school. The basic problem is, as I see it, that if we are not careful we will end up with a language that has no rules - a language where, as long as it is understood, everything is "do as you please".

Like everyone else I use some modernisms, americanisms and shorthand (and the odd typo) etc., but I do try, generally, to stick to the rules that were taught when I was at school. The basic problem is, as I see it, that if we are not careful we will end up with a language that has no rules - a language where, as long as it is understood, everything is "do as you please".

That just doesn't stand up at all. You talk as if this is a new thing, but there has been constant change and simplification of language for hundreds of years. The last major contribution to English was French, which combined with English 800 - 1000 years ago, yet English now is almost unrecognisable from that which was spoken then. Despite the changes to English and every other language in the world, language has always retained a structure, because it's needed for communication to work. That structure is evolving constantly but never disappears. If people start using split infinitives or using a blanket spelling of "effect", that's not the end of language structure, that's just the latest of many changes that have been going on since well before you could speak.

The rules haven't fallen apart because we ditched the polite "thou, thee, thy, thine" for a blanket "you, your, yours", it was a change of fashion change and a slackening of the rules that you've happily gone along with.

That just doesn't stand up at all. You talk as if this is a new thing, but there has been constant change and simplification of language for hundreds of years. The last major contribution to English was French, which combined with English 800 - 1000 years ago, yet English now is almost unrecognisable from that which was spoken then. Despite the changes to English and every other language in the world, language has always retained a structure, because it's needed for communication to work. That structure is evolving constantly but never disappears. If people start using split infinitives or using a blanket spelling of "effect", that's not the end of language structure, that's just the latest of many changes that have been going on since well before you could speak.

The rules haven't fallen apart because we ditched the polite "thou, thee, thy, thine" for a blanket "you, your, yours", it was a change of fashion change and a slackening of the rules that you've happily gone along with.

Are you suggesting that there is, therefore, no need to be able to spell, or use the correct words in the correct circumstances. Is it acceptable that many people nowadays do not know the difference between for example, "your" and "you're" or "their", "they're" and "there?" I fully accept that our language is always changing, but there has always been, at least a basic knowledge of the current rules of spelling and grammar which seems to be disappearing at a great rate.

its quite simple...

Texts/instant messaging/forum posting - is normally bad grammar as its just time saving to abrevi8

You only need to use 'proper' grammar with formal documentation or anything 'serious'

Whats the difference between 'effect' and 'affected'

and 'sound effects' and 'Sound FX'

its quite simple...

 

Texts/instant messaging/forum posting - is normally bad grammar as its just time saving to abrevi8

 

You only need to use 'proper' grammar with formal documentation or anything 'serious'

 

 

 

 

 

Whats the difference between 'effect' and 'affected'

'Effect' is a noun, 'Affected' is the past tense of a verb.

LBOIT (Little bit of irony there)

Language evolves and the language you now consider correct is a simplified easier version of the English that was spoken just a few decades ago. If it has been okay for you to follow the trend and go with a more fashionable version of the language, why is it sad when other people do the same?

Sorry Norway, I think you’re confusing what the original whinge was about; it’s about people’s general laziness and apathy towards using the correct spelling and grammar and not knowing their tenses and so on properly.

You’re alluding to something different, there are some people resistant to change and still those who idolise the way English was spoken 70, 80, 90 years ago. When was the last time you heard someone use the word, thrice? Great word though! Of course languages change and evolve, that’s a given, otherwise there would be no word for what I’m staring at (monitor), the medium I’m using to transmit the message and so on. We’d still be grunting around. Mind you, I see many Londoners doing that every day anyway.

My English tuition at school was quite frankly, crap. I was primary-schooled in the early to mid 1980s, when English seemed to be a forgotten subject. I have however over the last 20 years made an effort to learn more. But then I do have a thirst for learning and would rather read an autobiography or non-fictional book on the train rather than something fictional. Maybe I’m dull! Anyway ...

I really don’t think it’s hard for people to not use text speak and not hide behind the fact that, “as long as it is understood”;

Your, you’re.

There, they’re, their.

Could/would HAVE.

CDs, DVDs, ‘80s, 90s, FAQs.

Affect, effect (as per the original post).

Won’t, want, will not

But it’s not just that, it is poor sentence construction and bad use of apostrophes and connectives. Some of the old English rules we were actually taught at school are ********, such as not starting your sentence with ‘And’. You can.

Some of the worst grammar and construction happens to be in some of the newspapers. The Sun can often be appalling as can some of the Daily Echo articles when I read them online (I don’t mean you, Dan K!). The BBC online news is dreadfully written half the time, almost like it’s been written/drafted by Neil from the Inbetweeners on work experience.

Anyway, maybe I am a boring, grumpy old fart, who cares, it bugs me and I like to moan about it. I like to moan about a lot of things, the pronunciation some of our newsreaders and presenters come out with is another ...

NorwaySaint, you are really coming across as a bit of an arrogant sod, i'm sure you can understand the message that MOG is trying to present to you.

If there are no real rules then how do we educate the future generations on grammar? If a child's work is marked as wrong by a teacher then how is the teacher supposed to explain to him/her that it's wrong if there is no underlying reason or grammar rule anymore? Does the teacher just say 'It's wrong' because it is and that's that?

How does a teacher explain prepositions, zero conditionals or third conditionals or the thirteen tense structures (that I am aware of), such as past simple, future present etc if it doesn't really matter?

In fact, we might as well just give up on rules, or the underlying principle behind teaching a child a new language structure as it might change, so they might as well write what they like, as long as it's understandable.

I don't think we should dumb down grammar, I'm no expert, as someone will surely point out, but that doesn't mean we should stop teaching the basic rules because it might change anyway in the future.

Like everyone else I use some modernisms, americanisms and shorthand (and the odd typo) etc., but I do try, generally, to stick to the rules that were taught when I was at school. The basic problem is, as I see it, that if we are not careful we will end up with a language that has no rules - a language where, as long as it is understood, everything is "do as you please".

And therein lies the problem. We've always had - and always will have - colloquialisms, dialects, and slang. Forum talk / textspeak are just new versions of that and they have their place. But anyone using them still needs to know the correct English and be able to use it when required. Without that central point of reference we could soon get to the stage where we are unable to converse. An example I know one person who used "cd" in texts to mean "could" whilst someone else uses "cld". I read both as "could". As long as we all know that it means "could" then not a problem but if, a couple of generations down the line the descendants on one only ever us cd because they think it's actually the correct way of spelling it, and the others descendants always use "cld" for the same reason then the two won't have a clue what each other are talking about.

its quite simple...

 

Whats the difference between 'effect' and 'affected'

You are affected by an effect.

As said already 'affect' is a verb; 'effect' is a noun....usually. However what causes some of the confusion is that actually effect is also a verb, albeit one with a different meaning, and one that is not very commonly used. To effect mean 'to do', in the sense of carry out. 'The result was affected by ....' and 'The result was effected by ...' have completely different meanings. The second phrase would be used when describing how the result had been brought about, whereas the first means how it was influenced or changed.

It is this difference in meaning that makes using the correct spelling important. Using the wrong one actually changes the meaning of the sentence.....it affects it significantly in fact.... it isn't just a matter of looking good.

Sorry Norway, I think you’re confusing what the original whinge was about; it’s about people’s general laziness and apathy towards using the correct spelling and grammar and not knowing their tenses and so on properly.

You’re alluding to something different, there are some people resistant to change and still those who idolise the way English was spoken 70, 80, 90 years ago. When was the last time you heard someone use the word, thrice? Great word though! Of course languages change and evolve, that’s a given, otherwise there would be no word for what I’m staring at (monitor), the medium I’m using to transmit the message and so on. We’d still be grunting around. Mind you, I see many Londoners doing that every day anyway.

 

My English tuition at school was quite frankly, crap. I was primary-schooled in the early to mid 1980s, when English seemed to be a forgotten subject. I have however over the last 20 years made an effort to learn more. But then I do have a thirst for learning and would rather read an autobiography or non-fictional book on the train rather than something fictional. Maybe I’m dull! Anyway ...

 

I really don’t think it’s hard for people to not use text speak and not hide behind the fact that, “as long as it is understood”;

Your, you’re.

There, they’re, their.

Could/would HAVE.

CDs, DVDs, ‘80s, 90s, FAQs.

Affect, effect (as per the original post).

Won’t, want, will not

 

But it’s not just that, it is poor sentence construction and bad use of apostrophes and connectives. Some of the old English rules we were actually taught at school are ********, such as not starting your sentence with ‘And’. You can.

 

Some of the worst grammar and construction happens to be in some of the newspapers. The Sun can often be appalling as can some of the Daily Echo articles when I read them online (I don’t mean you, Dan K!). The BBC online news is dreadfully written half the time, almost like it’s been written/drafted by Neil from the Inbetweeners on work experience.

 

Anyway, maybe I am a boring, grumpy old fart, who cares, it bugs me and I like to moan about it. I like to moan about a lot of things, the pronunciation some of our newsreaders and presenters come out with is another ...

Hi Bateman, my point was generally about the inferrence that it is bad that many don't know the difference between effect and affect. In my opinion, this is just the kind of thing that will gradually alter the language eventually. I can easily imagine that in a hundred years time the word effect will be used universally as both the noun and the verb and I don't see a problem with this. As an English teacher, I would correct the mistake and explain the difference. What I find silly is when people talk about this gradual change as a dumming down of the language and a beginning of the end for all grammatical rules. It's simply not true, grammatical rules will always stand as communication becomes unclear without them. The shape of the language will continue to change though. This is already happening through the common American use of adjectives in the place of adverbs. Sooner or later this is going to become an accepted variant and adverbs as we know them could slowly fall out of use.

A short while ago I started a thread about a BBC article about exactly this subject, although focusing on pronunciation. Unfortunately most people who commented didn't read the article but just the title about aitch and haitch and couldn't get beyond that.

NorwaySaint, you are really coming across as a bit of an arrogant sod, i'm sure you can understand the message that MOG is trying to present to you.

 

If there are no real rules then how do we educate the future generations on grammar? If a child's work is marked as wrong by a teacher then how is the teacher supposed to explain to him/her that it's wrong if there is no underlying reason or grammar rule anymore? Does the teacher just say 'It's wrong' because it is and that's that?

 

How does a teacher explain prepositions, zero conditionals or third conditionals or the thirteen tense structures (that I am aware of), such as past simple, future present etc if it doesn't really matter?

 

In fact, we might as well just give up on rules, or the underlying principle behind teaching a child a new language structure as it might change, so they might as well write what they like, as long as it's understandable.

 

I don't think we should dumb down grammar, I'm no expert, as someone will surely point out, but that doesn't mean we should stop teaching the basic rules because it might change anyway in the future.

I don't know if this is supposed to be a wind up or if you just didn't read my earlier posts properly. I've only said that I think there should be rules in grammar and that although language is always changing and always has done, the rules have always remained and always will, albeit with regular changes. Most of your post seems to be based on the assumption that I don't think rules are important and can all be discarded. I don't really see what the "arrogant" bit is based on and you certainly don't explain it there.

I spend a lot of time explaining the difference between present simple or continuous to pupils and I can't find the place where I've inferred that different tenses are unimportant. What I have said is that language has changed and will change. Nowadays most people split infinitives without even considering it, soon it could be considered a redundant rule. Has this made our language fall apart and become an incomprehensible mess? Does people using effect as a verb mean we can use prepositions randomly? Finer points of grammar will change with fashion, it's not just happening now, it's always happened, but at the same time there will always be a structure.

Hi Bateman, my point was generally about the inferrence that it is bad that many don't know the difference between effect and affect. In my opinion, this is just the kind of thing that will gradually alter the language eventually. I can easily imagine that in a hundred years time the word effect will be used universally as both the noun and the verb and I don't see a problem with this. As an English teacher, I would correct the mistake and explain the difference. What I find silly is when people talk about this gradual change as a dumming down of the language and a beginning of the end for all grammatical rules. It's simply not true, grammatical rules will always stand as communication becomes unclear without them. The shape of the language will continue to change though. This is already happening through the common American use of adjectives in the place of adverbs. Sooner or later this is going to become an accepted variant and adverbs as we know them could slowly fall out of use.

A short while ago I started a thread about a BBC article about exactly this subject, although focusing on pronunciation. Unfortunately most people who commented didn't read the article but just the title about aitch and haitch and couldn't get beyond that.

 

 

 

I don't know if this is supposed to be a wind up or if you just didn't read my earlier posts properly. I've only said that I think there should be rules in grammar and that although language is always changing and always has done, the rules have always remained and always will, albeit with regular changes. Most of your post seems to be based on the assumption that I don't think rules are important and can all be discarded. I don't really see what the "arrogant" bit is based on and you certainly don't explain it there.

I spend a lot of time explaining the difference between present simple or continuous to pupils and I can't find the place where I've inferred that different tenses are unimportant. What I have said is that language has changed and will change. Nowadays most people split infinitives without even considering it, soon it could be considered a redundant rule. Has this made our language fall apart and become an incomprehensible mess? Does people using effect as a verb mean we can use prepositions randomly? Finer points of grammar will change with fashion, it's not just happening now, it's always happened, but at the same time there will always be a structure.

If you are an English teacher, I think you need to check the difference in usage between 'imply' and 'infer', which is nearly as important as the difference between 'affect' and 'effect'. You are clearly using 'infer' when you mean 'imply'. I'll gloss over the spelling of 'inference' and 'dumbing', giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that those were typographical errors rather than spelling errors as such.

For what it's worth, overall, personally, I agree with you.

Do you know I always have to check those two, but this time didn't and made an arse of myself.

This is why they should bring back grammar schools.

Please help people, there are lost words out there that need saving!

Please help people, there are lost words out there that need saving!

Interesting little website.

Labascate - great word

Some people on here are so sevidical

This is why they should bring back grammar schools.

Which only 20-30% of the population went to. Funny how no one says "bring back secondary moderns", which the other 70-80% would have to go to if we did bring back grammar schools.

And it's also funny how Kent, which never really got rid of grammar schools, does quite badly in comparative league tables.

I went to a boys grammar school in the 60's to 70's.The results of the bottom set lads there were appalling, yet they were in the top 20% of the ability range for that county.

M i n g e n t - discharging urine. Thats now mine folks, you can't have it.