Nay, nay nay.
That’s what they taught us in Artillery school.
“Rounds impact on the surface of the earth” is an example. They don’t hit the ground. They don’t land on target. They impact (whatever it is you’re shooting at*).
Hearing this in business speak makes me want to have rounds impact upon the speaker.
The usage is nearly 100 years old. Why object to it now?
I try to avoid it myself, but it doesn’t make me look askance when others use it (unlike the case with, say, “quality” as an adjective, which is truly awful).
I do wonder if those who are so vociferous against “impact” as a verb feel the same way about “access” as a verb—another old prohibition whose cause is now totally lost these days.
I think if any group is more notorious for butchering the English language than the mercantile set, it’s the military (“nucular” is pure Pentagon). “Rounds impact on the surface of the earth” sounds a lot worse to me than “The recent anomalous weather events in Florida will impact the price of OJ futures for at least the next few months.”
I voted “no.” While dictionary.com does list a verb form, I find myself hard pressed to find “the cars impacted” to make much sense.
Note: to anyone thinking “an impacted tooth” is a verb use, it’s not. It’s the adjective form, although the regular -ed ending to make an adjective out of a verb does imply that a verb form exists. However, there are several words that do this where the verb form is no longer in use, e.g. peopled. The verb “to people” has been replaced by “to populate.”
Hmm, in terms of affect, “to impact” sounds fine as mentioned above.
Defined as “to affect,” “to impact” would be ok.
Defined as “to collide,” I think the use has gone.
If there is a dialect of English that uses impact as a verb then among speakers of that dialect, using impact as a verb would be acceptable.