[geeks] Re: the impact of Anal-Retentiveness

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Sunday, March 17, 2002 at 14:46:56 (-0600), doctor obnox son of a bitch wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Anal-Retentiveness (was: Re: [geeks] a little advice about   DNS and naming conventions)
>
>  "Impact", as a verb.

You're _way_ behind the times on that one -- it's been a noun and a verb
in dictionaries for many hundreds of years or more, and remains so in
every dictionary I own or can find online:

>From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

  Impact \Im*pact"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Impacted}; p. pr. & vb.
     n. {Impacting}.] [L. impactus, p. p. of impingere to push,
     strike against. See {Impinge}.]
     To drive close; to press firmly together: to wedge into a
     place. --Woodward.

>From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:

  impact
       v 1: press or wedge together; pack together
       2: have an effect upon; "Will the new rules affect me?" [syn: {affect},
           {bear upon}, {bear on}, {touch on}, {touch}]


This most wonderful quote from my ITP Nelson Canadian Dictionary though
sheds a little light on your feelings (and may help you understand more
about what you should really dislike and what you should let by ;-):

	Usage Note:  Many writers avoid the construction "to impact on,"
	as in the phrase "Government policies that impact heavily on
	social assistance programs."  They also avoid the use of
	"impact" as a transitive verb, as in the sentence "Companies
	have used disposable techniques that have a potential for
	impacting our health."

	It may be that the particular pretentiousness associated with
	the verbal use of "impact" is caused by its derivation from an
	already questionable metaphoric use of the noun "impact," as in
	phrases such as "the political impact of the decision," in which
	no more is usually meant than might have been expressed by
	"effects" or "consequences."  But "impact" has now become so
	common in corporate and institutional contexts taht younger
	speakers appear to regard it as wholly standard and
	straightforward usage.  Within a few years, accordingly, the
	usage is likely to be nor more objectionable than the use of
	"contact" as a verb.

Which is _extremely_ funny on so many levels, but of course in a rather
dry and academic sort of way!  ;-)


They go on to say:

	Word History:  The often criticized use of "impact," as in
	"government policies that impact on social assistance programs"
	illustrates how one part of speach can have an impact on
	another.  The noun "impact" comes from the past participle
	"impactus" of the Latin verb "impingere," which means "to bring
	into violent contact," "to drive persons or other creatures onto
	or against," and "to fix, fasten onto."  Our noun, first
	recorded in 1781, derived its sense from the "contact" sense of
	"impingere."  First recorded in a scientific context having to
	do with the collision of bodies, it was much used in scientific
	contexts and later, in the 19th century, took on a figurative
	sense, "the effect of one thin upon another."  The verb
	"impact," on the other hand, also coming from Latin "impactus,"
	is found much earlier than the noun, that is, it is first
	recorded in 1601, deriving its sense from the "driving" and
	"fixing" senses of "impingere" and meaning "to press closely
	into something, pack in."  This old sense is still with us, but
	the later noun had an influence on the verb, giving us senses
	such as "to strike forcefully" and "to have an effect."

Which just goes to show you.....   :-)

(I really like my ITP Nelson dictionary -- the editors have great humour!)

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods at acm.org>;  <g.a.woods at ieee.org>;  <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>