Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

TERM: affect

Expand Messages
  • Jirka Bolech
    Hi there, I ve always wondered if the verb affect can be used with positive or neutral connotations. The point is how you translate Czech ovlivnit /
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi there,

      I've always wondered if the verb "affect" can be used with
      positive or neutral connotations. The point is how you
      translate Czech "ovlivnit" / "ovlivnovat" (ovlivn^ovat).

      Obviously if I say "the crop has been affected by the
      weather", you'll think the crop is bad. Could the verb, like
      "smell", go with some specific adverbs to modify the
      meaning; perhpas like saying "the crop has been affected by
      the weather favo(u)rably"?

      Jirka Bolech
    • Simon Vaughan
      Hi Jirka, ... In this type of construction, the adverb would normally go directly in front of the past participle: the crop has been favourably affected by
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 29, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jirka,

        > I've always wondered if the verb "affect" can be used with
        > positive or neutral connotations. The point is how you
        > translate Czech "ovlivnit" / "ovlivnovat" (ovlivn^ovat).
        >
        > Obviously if I say "the crop has been affected by the
        > weather", you'll think the crop is bad. Could the verb, like
        > "smell", go with some specific adverbs to modify the
        > meaning; perhpas like saying "the crop has been affected by
        > the weather favo(u)rably"?

        In this type of construction, the adverb would normally go directly in front
        of the past participle:

        "the crop has been favourably affected by the weather".

        However, I see from the BNC that "favourably affected" is much less common
        than its opposite, "adversely affected". My collocations dictionaries,
        furthermore, give no alternatives to "favourably". So perhaps more radical
        lexical or syntactic changes would be preferable, as in:

        "the crop has thrived under the present weather conditions".

        Simon
      • melvyn.geo
        ... Positively affected might just possibly work. M.
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 29, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Czechlist@y..., "Simon Vaughan" <rachelandsimon@q...> wrote:
          > Hi Jirka,
          >
          > > I've always wondered if the verb "affect" can be used with
          > > positive or neutral connotations. The point is how you
          > > translate Czech "ovlivnit" / "ovlivnovat" (ovlivn^ovat).
          > >
          > > Obviously if I say "the crop has been affected by the
          > > weather", you'll think the crop is bad. Could the verb, like
          > > "smell", go with some specific adverbs to modify the
          > > meaning; perhpas like saying "the crop has been affected by
          > > the weather favo(u)rably"?
          >
          > In this type of construction, the adverb would normally go directly in front
          > of the past participle:
          >
          > "the crop has been favourably affected by the weather".
          >
          > However, I see from the BNC that "favourably affected" is much less common
          > than its opposite, "adversely affected". My collocations dictionaries,
          > furthermore, give no alternatives to "favourably".


          "Positively affected" might just possibly work.

          M.
        • Michael Trittipo
          ... Yes. It can be used in place of influenced. Neutral: Wine color is affected the most by: * the age of the wine. * the grape variety * whether or not
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 30, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >
            >>>I've always wondered if the verb "affect" can be used with
            >>>positive or neutral connotations.
            >>>
            >>>
            Yes. It can be used in place of "influenced."

            Neutral:

            "Wine color is affected the most by:
            * the age of the wine.
            * the grape variety
            * whether or not the wine spent time in oak"

            from http://www.geerwade.com/gw/educenter/tasting.asp;

            Positive:
            "Vintners who use petit verdot in their blends tend to use it sparingly
            - rarely more than 5 percent - because of its powerful tannins. Michael
            Silacci . . . blended less than one percent of the variety into the 1997
            Cask 23, yet found it adequate to achieve the desired effect. 'After I
            did the bench testing and found that just that tiny amount significantly
            affected the blend, I experimented with a much larger quantity . . .',
            he recounts. " . . . It was amazing what that drop of petit verdot could
            do."

            from http://www.thewinenews.com/junjul00/cover.html

            "Affected positively" gets 3,000+ hits; "Positively affected" gets
            16,000+ hits; "negatively affected" gets 72,000+; & "affected
            negatively" gets 6,000+. One could argue from these numbers that the
            "negatively" is not perceived as redundant.
          • Simon Vaughan
            ... The two are not interchangeable, as S.I. Hayakawa explains in Synonyms and Related Words: Influence ...is usually used of intangible forces, and affect
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 30, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > ["Affected"] can be used in place of "influenced."

              The two are not interchangeable, as S.I. Hayakawa explains in Synonyms and
              Related Words:

              'Influence'...is usually used of intangible forces, and 'affect' of physical
              forces: to influence public opinion through the press; to affect the size of
              a crop by using fertilizer. 'Affect' may sometimes imply an undesirable
              result: unusual exertion may affect that heart.

              I suspect that Czech translators tend to overuse the word 'influence' in
              their translations into English.

              > One could argue from these numbers that the
              > "negatively" is not perceived as redundant.

              Yes, it would seem from the larger number of negative collocations of
              'affect' than positive ones that, while the word is often used in
              constructions with a negative meaning, negativity is not necessarily
              implicit in the word itself.

              Simon
            • Michael Trittipo
              ... Agreed on both counts. It was the second point that I over-hastily expressed with the first statement: i.e., I meant to be saying that there is no reason
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 30, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Simon Vaughan wrote:

                >>["Affected"] can be used in place of "influenced."
                >>
                >>
                >
                >The two are not interchangeable . . ..
                >
                >I suspect that Czech translators tend to overuse the word 'influence' in
                >their translations into English.
                >

                Agreed on both counts. It was the second point that I over-hastily
                expressed with the first statement: i.e., I meant to be saying that
                there is no reason in a supposed negative feel for "affected" NOT to use
                it instead of "influenced."

                What does Hayakawa say about "in place of" and "instead of," by the way?
                When in his opinion does "A [in place of|instead of] B" mean "A *AND
                NOT* B" (i.e., where there was B, remove it, and in its place put A) and
                when does it mean "*EITHER* A *OR* B interchangeably"?




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Simon Vaughan
                Hi Michael, ... Unfortunately, he doesn t deal with those phrases. ... Can they ever mean the latter? If so, could you furnish me with examples, to make that
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 2, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Michael,

                  > What does Hayakawa say about "in place of" and "instead of," by the way?

                  Unfortunately, he doesn't deal with those phrases.

                  > When in his opinion does "A [in place of|instead of] B" mean "A *AND
                  > NOT* B" (i.e., where there was B, remove it, and in its place put A) and
                  > when does it mean "*EITHER* A *OR* B interchangeably"?

                  Can they ever mean the latter? If so, could you furnish me with examples,
                  to make that usage clearer to me? Thanks!

                  Simon
                • JPKIRCHNER@aol.com
                  ... I don t think they can ever mean the latter. Unless someone can show me cases of it, I ll assume someone is having what I call a proofreader s
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 2, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 9/2/02 4:53:02 AM, rachelandsimon@... writes:

                    >> When in his opinion does "A [in place of|instead of] B" mean "A *AND
                    >> NOT* B" (i.e., where there was B, remove it, and in its place put A) and
                    >> when does it mean "*EITHER* A *OR* B interchangeably"?

                    >Can they ever mean the latter?

                    I don't think they can ever mean the latter. Unless someone can show me
                    cases of it, I'll assume someone is having what I call a "proofreader's
                    hallucination".

                    Note also that "stead" means "place", e.g., "I have come in his stead."
                    Webster's New World Collegiate defines "instead" as "in place of the person
                    or thing mentioned". And how about "in lieu", which also means "in stead"
                    and "in place", because "lieu" means "place"?

                    Jamie
                  • Michael Trittipo
                    ... SV Can they ever mean the latter? If so, could you furnish me with examples, SV to make that usage clearer to me? Thanks! That was why I asked. I wrote
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 2, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >> When in his opinion does "A [in place of|instead of] B" mean "A *AND
                      >> NOT* B" (i.e., where there was B, remove it, and in its place put A) and
                      >> when does it mean "*EITHER* A *OR* B interchangeably"?

                      SV> Can they ever mean the latter? If so, could you furnish me with examples,
                      SV> to make that usage clearer to me? Thanks!

                      That was why I asked. I wrote "in place of" meaning the former. And
                      then you wrote "The two are not interchangeable." I hadn't said
                      anything about interchangeability; I wrote only "in place of." Yet you
                      appeared to have read me as saying something about mutual universal
                      interchangeability rather than a sometimes better one-way substitution
                      for an over-used and sometimes misplaced "influence."
                    • Simon Vaughan
                      ... Oh, I think I understand now. I suppose I thought that, by saying that affected could be used in place of influenced , you implied that the two words
                      Message 10 of 10 , Sep 3, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > >> When in his opinion does "A [in place of|instead of] B" mean "A *AND
                        > >> NOT* B" (i.e., where there was B, remove it, and in its place put A)
                        > >> and when does it mean "*EITHER* A *OR* B interchangeably"?
                        >
                        > SV> Can they ever mean the latter? If so, could you furnish me with
                        > SV> examples, to make that usage clearer to me? Thanks!
                        >
                        > That was why I asked. I wrote "in place of" meaning the former. And
                        > then you wrote "The two are not interchangeable." I hadn't said
                        > anything about interchangeability; I wrote only "in place of." Yet you
                        > appeared to have read me as saying something about mutual universal
                        > interchangeability rather than a sometimes better one-way substitution
                        > for an over-used and sometimes misplaced "influence."

                        Oh, I think I understand now. I suppose I thought that, by saying that
                        'affected' could be used in place of 'influenced', you implied that the two
                        words were exact synonyms -- and thus could be used interchangeably.

                        Simon
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.