Have You Noticed: "Affect" vs. "Effect

[Moonbear]

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?

 

[honestrosewater]

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?

 

[honestrosewater]

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?

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.

 

[Moonbear]

Could someone hijack this thread please? Tell us about Norway, arildno?

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. You've doomed yourself to this topic forever!

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.

 

[honestrosewater]

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. You've doomed yourself to this topic forever!

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.

 

[Danger]

than the general public who is sloppy with their usage.

?

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

 

[honestrosewater]

?

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

There could be more than one general public... eh...

 

[Danger]

There could be more than one general public... eh...

Then it would be '...the general publics, which are sloppy...'.

 

[Moonbear]

?

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

That was pretty bad, huh? I clearly didn't have enough coffee before attempting to discuss grammar yesterday!

 

[Danger]

That was pretty bad, huh?

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.)

 

[honestrosewater]

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?

 

[dextercioby]

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.

 

[honestrosewater]

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"

 

[Moonbear]

Alrighty, let's give this a try.

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!
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.)

 

[honestrosewater]

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.

 

[Danger]

I fully intended to respond to this when I got home from work, but got sidetracked. Now that I'm on my 10th beer, I have decided to wait until tomorrow. If I remember anything about this tomorrow, that is...

 

[hypatia]

I'd keep it short and sweet.
No drugs. No clothes. No lie

 

[Danger]

I'd keep it short and sweet.
No drugs. No clothes. No lie

Mostly right, my dear, but absolutely lie... on the floor, on the kitchen counter, on Moonbear's stairs... (And I can see you keeping a sweet one, but not a short one.)