Other than the fact that the panel considered it just plain wrong to use impact as a verb?
They document use as a verb in the dictionary part, so I don’t interpret them as saying it’s “plain wrong”, which I would certainly take issue with. And in the Usage Note they say:
The verb is a different matter. Many people dislike it because they assume it was converted from the noun in the manner of voguish and bureaucratic words like dialogue and interface, but in fact impact was a verb long before it was a noun—the verb dates from the early 1600s, the noun from the late 1700s.
They then report their “Usage Panel” data, which seems pretty clearly differentiated as “style guide” rather than empirical usage data. So the way I read the thing taken together they are saying that there is no empirical foundation for objecting to its use as a verb, but nevertheless their survey data reports that most style guides do strongly deprecate the intransitive form, so best to avoid it on that basis.
I mean, that’s a subjective judgement on writing style, but it’s clearly presented as such, even you disagree with it. The thing I really have a problem with is subjective stylistic advice masquerading as a assertion that something is objectively wrong.
This is the conclusion. It doesn’t seem to say that it is plain wrong : “Although resistance to the transitive senses is waning, the intransitive use is still strongly disliked and is best avoided.”
In other words, they’re warming up to “The meteor impacted the surface” but not “The meteor impacted on the surface.”
No problem. And I hope that your beverage of choice will continue to impact on your mood in this favorable manner for the rest of the evening.
Man (assuming gender, I know), I have been having so much fun tonight. I hope I don’t regret it much in the AM. Thanks, pal!
I can’t think of many that end with a “tay” sound, other than jete, I guess. I played some piano, so fort-ay just sounds like the Italian forte to me.
And that, I think, is the issue. Early on, fort became an analogy for forte, and so the two pronunciations melded. I mean, forte came into being (meaning “strong point”) less than a hundred years after the word entered the English language. so there was most likely a confusion in pronunciation from the get-go.
Yes, I did oversimplify, but over the years, 80%-90% of the panel were against verbing impact, which is pretty close to them saying that it’s just plain wrong.
Being highly conservative, the panel is an excellent indicator of language change. As Riemann’s link showed:
It’s sad to me that the panel was ended in 2018. They were a great resource.
I would not consider that an accurate summary of the usage note. And it doesn’t even take into account the distinction made between the transitive and intransitive versions.
I’m not really talking about the usage note. I’m talking about the panel.
I knew an Australian person who pronounced cache as “kaish”. And he said it a lot, because he was a geocacher and so caches were a main topic of conversation. I have never heard that pronunciation before or since.
I sometimes pronounce “cash” as “kaish” (or “cashish”), but that’s just for fun.
Yep. I’ve heard “cache” pronounced as “cachet” (kashay) more than a few times.
[keɪʃ] instead of [kæʃ] is a pretty common regional pronunciation in parts of the Midwest.
Do they have aints in their paints?
They might. I believe that in some dialects there might be a split of the /æ/ phoneme, but I don’t know too much about the details.
In other words, æ might be pronounced differently depending on the proceeding and (my, guess more likely) succeeding consonants.
For example, in Southern English, there is the famous bath-trap split. I think there might be a split in some Midwestern dialects.
Interesting. I’ve heard [keəʃ], which significantly fronts that /æ/ vowel (like how most of General American says the vowel in “man”). But never actually [keɪʃ], similar to the word “case” or “geisha.”
Does this change show up in other word with /æʃ/, or is it a case of spelling-based pronunciation?