This is a discussion thread · 36 replies
"If a salary sacrifice scheme is considered, employees need to be aware that both private and state pension contributions will also reduce and that some state benefits could be affected."
In contrast, "effect" is most often used as a noun. It means the result of an action.
It is easy to see why confusion can arise: when an action affects something, it produces an effect. When wondering which to use, remember that "affect", in normal usage, is always a verb. "Effect" can be a noun or a verb but is usually a noun. As a verb, it means to bring about or accomplish something, as in:
We've effected the design changes as requested. (we've made the changes)
In recent years, the government has effected major improvements to the health care system. (the improvements were successfully implemented)
It is "effect" -- not "affect" -- that frequently appears in compound nouns, prepositional phrases, and phrasal verbs. Examples:
come into effect
bring into effect
give effect to
to the effect that
to that effect
Looking for ESL work?: Try our EFL / TOEFL / ESL Jobs Section!
What He and I thought would be effected looks like what will be effected.
What He and I thought would be affected looks like what will be affected.
No matter which spelling you choose the meaning of the sentence stays the same.
When effected is used the sentence roughly means: ...what changes would come about looks like what changes will come about.
When affected is used the sentence roughly means: ...what would be changed looks like what will be changed.
Without knowing the exact context, what would the preferred spelling be in this case?
So what would be effected is what would be caused or what would be created; what would be affected is what would be influenced. (To be affected is not really to be changed.)
Since you mention change, note that a change might be effected (if a new rule is put into operation, say), but it's not usual to speak of a change being affected. Typically it's the other way around. A change can affect (influence) something else. That something else is affected (influenced) by the change.
Your sentences say something like this:
What he thought would [come to be / be accomplished / be put into operation] looks like what will [come to be / be accomplished / be put into operation].
What he thought would be influenced looks like what will be influenced.
The verb effect is hardly ever used compared to the verb affect, which is very common.
Disambiguating the two uses conflated in your one sentence shows more clearly what the difference is between the two verbs affect and effect.
A person with epilepsy may be affected (influenced) (to have a seizure) by strobe lighting.
An episode of epilepsy (a seizure) may be effected (caused to come about) by strobe lighting.
--Anything that can be said to "come to be" is itself a change from what previously existed or didn't exist.
" What he thought would be influenced looks like what will be influenced."
--Anything that is influenced is changed by that influence.
" The verb effect is hardly ever used compared to the verb affect, which is very common."
--Which word is more commonly used in these cases is a mildly interesting fact, but you give no substantial reason why that preference should be given preference.
Although the two original sentences have slightly different "literal" meanings when examined part by part, the complete idea behind each sentence is the same as the other.
Now, as a slight tangent, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion myself that the rules for affect/effect need a complete overhaul to be readily understood and applied to all modern use cases. English is a living language and there is no reason to keep confusing rules around when we can instead create new more rational (by today's standards) rules. The world is becoming more and more complicated and reducing that complication seems like a good idea. It's not like it hasn't been done countless times in the past to the benifit of all.
Just to clarify, the reason both sentences can mean the same thing is that the subject is unspecified.
In one case the subject is what is being influenced, and in the other the subject is the influence itself.
When affected is used the literal meaning would be something like: "What [thing] he thought would be [influenced]..."
When effected is used the literal meaning would be something like "What [influence] he thought would be [brought about/accomplished/put into operation]..."
Looking strictly at the dictionary definitions from several dictionaries it seems the most memorable rules to use instead of the "accepted" rules would have to be something similar to the following:
1) Use affect[ed] when referencing a mental state (usually an emotion attachment).
2) Use effect[ed] when referencing a change or influence (including the change from non-existence to existence).
Under the old rules, affect[ed] has two meanings, one of which logically conflicts with the meaning of effect[ed], so these new rules essentially just remove the conflict, and leave both words with a single meaning.
I personally will no longer use the old rules, they seem very ridiculous to me. After all, nothing is accomplished without influence, and there is no influence without accomplishment, If we really mean "influence" or "accomplish", or any other word representing a shade of the meaning of change, we can use those words instead.
I believe [effect] is a noun, as in [side effect], not a verb. But occasionally many have mistakenly used it as a verb.
The continuous interest rate hikes for the past 18 months has negatively affected home sale across the US. This rippling effect has been felt by industries in home appliances and building materials.