On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 04:48, Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Yet Felipe insists that 'impact' is somehow generally bad word to use or > that it should be abolished solely because he finds it bad and nobody > objected to the alternative wording. > > Opinions on use of 'impact' differ both among the participants of this > discussion and authorities like authors well-known dictionaries. > > It looks like this is generally matter of stylistic preferences and > opinions. That is even if there is some slight stylistic preference for > not using the word 'impact' it is very hard to prove such and then it is > very hard to request change based only on writing style preferences. The argument is not that it is generally a bad word to use, but that it is generally bad to use words when they don't mean what one thinks they mean, especially when all evidence says otherwise. All major dictionaries define "impact" as "a strong effect" or "to affect strongly". This is not style, but semantics. In the same way that "per se" being used to mean "necessarily" is not a style issue, using "impact" to mean "an effect" or "to affect" is not a style issue. As has been stated already, the clear and substantial argument for this change is that it reduces the confusion that arises from improperly using the word "impact" in the instances without any loss or compromise in meaning. That is a clear win.
