There's a matter of degree. Like "who vs whom" was lost long ago. Effect is still distinguished enough from Affect that a serious person should want to look into it. Plus using effect as an verb accurately always makes for a fun sentence.

I just discovered yesterday that I wasn't completely clear about lying vs. laying.. I stared at the summary results to googling about it a bit stare-y like.. wait what? I should know about this.

No! Stand strong on affect and effect!

But maybe let piqued go since it is much less common.

One of the higher-ups at the publishing company where I work used the wrong "there" in a company-wide email and my whole floor exploded at once.

rmless2, what's the misuse of piqued ?

This question was spurred by this great call to action posted over at Pam's House Blend. And on one hand I was like, "Right on!" And on the other I was like, "Stop mixing up your affects with your effects! You just used it correctly in the last paragraph!"

(I admit that, at least in written text, I still try to use 'whom' correctly. Plus, during arguments it gives the speaker a bit of rhetorical power when they can drop a 'whom' or even a 'whomsover' or two)

I'm a slightly ashamed whom-user. I sometimes have to stop myself from using it when it's correct, if I'm concerned that it'll make the audience think I'm a pedant.

And no, don't give up the affect-effect battle. They're two different words that have the misfortune of being spelled similarly, but that doesn't make them interchangeable.

Oh don't get me wrong, I use 'whom' all the time. I don't even have to think about it (mostly) so I don't judge people who can't do it but if they want to judge me for it screw 'em (I realize that's easier said than done though, if you're genuinely worried about coming off as a pedant then 'screw em' isn't an option).

Complete this sentence: It is important that we worry about maintaining two distinct spellings for these words, even though they are pronounced identically in many dialects, and even though context makes it virtually impossible to mistake a noun for a verb in English, because _________.

If you want an encore, give me a reason I should care about "less than" vs "fewer than". (I know the what the rule says, but I don't see any point in it whatsoever, so personally I'll use whichever sounds nicer to me.)

I actually doubt that you know anybody, well-educated or otherwise, who doesn't understand the difference between the two concepts, affect vs effect. I think you very well may know some people who don't see any logical reason that the verb should get 'a' and the noun should get 'e', who dislike the arbitrary distinction as much as you dislike seeing them get it wrong, and consequently don't have any motivation to spend any time whatsoever worrying about the difference. Except that it might bother sensitive you; but my feeling is if you're really piqued by an a/e difference or a misplaced apostrophe, you should kind of spend some time around misplaced apostrophes in a familiar place until you feel a little more relaxed about it, rather than treating sensitivity to the issue as a point of pride or piety. That's a general purpose 'you', by the way, not you in particular. I don't know how you specifically feel about it.

Plus, even people who care about such things find their fingers betray them when they're typing. The way thoughts get turned into muscle motions is interesting and opaque, to say the least. And once you accidentally get the wrong their/there/they're or you're/your or even affect/effect out, it can be quite hard to spot, since you tend to read what you're thinking rather than what you're seeing.

Short version: get it right yourself if it matters to you, but if you let the inevitable mistakes get to you, you're pointlessly adding stress to your life which you could learn to avoid.

I was just talking about this the other day. I propose that we drop both words and use "fec" to be a homonym for both.

Here are some examples:

• How does this policy fec me?
• I've been arrested, how does this fec me?
• *point at the policy* What the fec?

That would be fecking fantastic.

The net fec of it all being it would save us time. It would have some interesting side-fecs too.

Go fec yourself.

Nah. Go the pseudo-Latin way.

"This æffects me."

"Wow, that's Latin. So cultured!"

Somethings are worth fighting for.

Yes.

This is not one of them.

Try and ignore it.

Plus using effect as an verb accurately always makes for a fun sentence.

Ditto using affect as a noun.

Don't surrender on piqued! I hate losing words, and pique is a good word, has a nice onomatopoeiac feel, like being gently stabbed with a very sharp needle.

Not so sure about affect/effect since I don't think we're in danger of losing something useful there.

The one that kills me is "lay" v. "lie." "He was laying in the road." Was he really, now? Won't someone think of the children?

Also "disinterested" when "uninterested" is meant. I corrected a marriage counselor on that one once. Perhaps that's why the marriage counseling didn't work . . . .

You're under no obligation to get over the peeve, and a peeve kept close to one's chest is a fine thing. But it's incumbent upon you to manage (which in casual contexts means minimize) expressions of that peeve. Keep that candle burning bright but make sure the light doesn't get in anyone else's eyes unless it's your job to shine it at them, etc.

And yeah, pique is a great word worth preserving.

And also yeah, the best thing about affect and effect is the dual utility each of them has as well, gumming up the works. Look, here's Travis Bickle trying to affect his social effectiveness by effecting affect.

Somethings are worth fighting for.

Alot of things, even.

Hey, look, I know the difference between these words in as much as I know what they mean and that they have separate meanings. But I still mess up the spellings and get them confused - because both of them are both a noun and a verb!! Two words, four meanings, all very close together in meaning, only one letter difference.

So I think you should cut people some slack.

Or what cortex said.

It's not hypocritical. Even though grammar changes (slowly) with popular usage, it's still a shibboleth of the educated world to write and spell and speak with conventional usage. And I'm in full support of that; I need reasons to chuck resumes out of large piles of applicants, and "not being alert to written conventions" is an excellent first sort. In many occupations people really do need to present well, to write and speak well and not call negative attention to their expressions, and even though intellectually I've been won over to the descriptivist side, that doesn't mean it's inconsistent to value conventional usage, which has much to offer even though it may not reign forever.

Writing is at its best when it is transparent - that is, when it doesn't make a majority or even a plurality of readers do mental double-takes and slow down their comprehension. Usage errors do that, and so they get in the way of understanding the ideas. We would all be miserable if our major media went about spelling and grammar differently every day; we'd get lost in minutiae and find it frustrating to cut to the meaning of each piece. This is one way in which using standard expression is simply efficacious. And polite. And defensible.

I think you should cut people some slack.

To clarify my stance -

I cut people some slack in casual situations. But I don't cut any slack in formal writing, whether it's a cover letter or resume, an article submitted for publication, a grant application, a program proposal, or a published piece. Those should be proofread before submission to match whatever style guide applies. But in other, more casual cases, slack may apply, especially for those that write thousands or tens of thousands of words a day. Some mistakes creep in.

I'm a habitual grammar mangler which is why I refuse to believe the real phrase is "sound bite" when "sound byte" seems superior in terms of it never makes me go, "A bite of sound? I mean, really?". I literally (in the newer sense of the word: so, figuratively then) insist upon thinking every writing I read with the phrase "sound bite" is patently wrong and stupid and probably written by a vile creature who likes turkey sausage. But I also think "deep-seeded" should replace "deep-seated" because I don't like knowing about anyone's seat or the depth of it so maybe I'm not the greatest judge.

But nonplussed is long past due to go the way of literally. And you can take that to your bed and lie on it while the effect of all your effects pique the interest of...let's say, your pet magpie. What, your effects are so shiny!

Never forget.

Just kidding.

Actually you are not in the wrong, muddgirl.

The confusion over affect and effect is primarily an issue of spelling or denotation, not grammar. I think people misuse the two because they spell poorly, are not aware that there is a separate word for each meaning, or are not aware that there are two separate meanings to begin with. The last, not knowing that there are two separate meanings, is kind of a grammar issue, but not completely.

I confess that I never can remember the difference between affect and effect, and always have to ask the Boy which one is which. I have called him from work with this question numerous times. He tries to explain it, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

RE: fec, such a word is already in common usage. It's had quite an impact on English in the past generation. But, beware: if you use it, we know who you are.

It's less a candle btw, and more a pyre. That's ok though, it keeps me warm at night.

I feel a bit hypocritical about this, too. Taking the long view, all language change (and ultimately the fact that we have different languages at all) is the result of people going out there and using words in a slightly different way to how they were previously used. It's an immensely cool process, and that combined with an interest in what happens in the brain when we produce language is why I got into linguistics (briefly).

On a day-to-day level, though, my business is writing, and I make it my business to conform to most of the "rules" out there (and/or to a particular style guide, depending on who I'm writing for). Clarity, for me, is the principle that trumps all others, and if I violate any particular rule I am usually prepared to defend myself in such terms.

What I don't do is criticise someone else's writing, unless they are being obnoxious in some way about language or unless I am contractually obliged or specifically asked to do so. When I work with students, I point out when they break rules and I couch any criticism in "this is something that picky people will notice about your writing" or "adhering to this rule will make this sentence clearer in this way" rather than "this is wrong in absolute terms".

Here ends alto's rules for staying sane. Also, what Miko said.

Also, these two words are pretty interesting in that both can be used as both noun and verb. Between them they have not just two meanings, but at least six that I can identify...

Affect = (v) make an impact on ("it was that last beer that affected my ability to drive")
Affect = (v) put on ("he affects an English accent, when he's really from Altoona")
Affect = (n)emotional state, as in "low affect"

Effect = (v) Impact with an action, make a change "the new restriction on gambling will effect a change in state revenues" (interestingly,you could also correctly say "will affect state revenues")
Effect = (n) result of the action ("the new restriction on gambling had the effect of reducing gambling addiction")
Effects = (n) stuff ("we gathered her persnonal effects")

As for peeves- I used to get much more annoyed about such things than I do now. I still notice them, but have calmed down a lot, possibly because the peeve-objects are so prevalent and I value my low blood pressure...

(is it Murphy's Law that dictated that I'd make a verb cock-up in a grammar thread?)