Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:58:30 -0400
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing
Subject: Re: impactful

At 11:13 AM 4/10/98 +0000, Jim Rader jrader[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE] wrote:
>There is an entry for _impactful_ in W3; our first cite for the word
>is from Martha Wolfenstein and Nathan Leites, _Movies: A
>Psychological Study_ (The Free Press, 1950)

Yes, I don't have W3 with me here -- and obviously I've been indulging in a
limited array of reading material all these years, since I haven't bumped
into "impactful" anywhere before.

I imagine that when items like impact-and-derivatives come to be seen as
trendy in some areas in the culture, other *rival* areas of the culture tend
to assert their independence by embargoing or stigmatizing them. The fact
that some areas of the culture refuse to use "impact" as a verb (let alone
the less common derivatives from "impact") makes it possible to read pretty
heavily in (e.g.) cultural journalism or academic writing in the humanities
and never encounter them anywhere.

Thanks for all the citations you provided (and thanks also to a couple of
folks who replied offlist).

>Much of the evidence for _impactful_ is from business, advertising,
>and marketing publications...

which authors and editors in the areas mentioned just above tend to look
down on, in general as well as in terms of linguistic usage....

>Whatever one thinks of it, _impactful_ is well-embedded in American

Am I getting the correct impression, that all or almost all the citations
are from US usage? Is this cluster of impact-derived words encountering
resistance in Commonwealth countries? Or is it that are they just being
innovated in US English, and spreading over time to other anglophone countries?

Greg Downing/NYU, at greg.downing[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE] or downingg[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]