affect v. impress v. strike

hhtt

Senior Member
Turkish
Context: This is about September 11 attacks and terrorism.

Which of the following is correct, idiomatic and in the same sense with each other?

1) The U.S was affected with terror in September 11.

2) The U.S was impressed with terror in September 11.

3) The U.S was struck with terror in September 11.

Source: Self-made

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    affect -> to (tend to) cause a change in something over time.
    impress -> (in this sense, which is very rare) to force [a concept] upon something or someone; to heavily persuade someone of (usually but not always) a concept.
    Strike – to inflict a sudden and violent blow.
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    For me, there's an extra 'complication' in the OP sentences in that there is a strong association between the words 'terror' and 'September 11'.

    On first reading, I thought you were trying to say that the US was attacked by terrorists, or was the victim of a terrorist attack, on September 11.

    Now I understand that you meant something else, I agree with dermott's suggestion, and Paul's definitions.
     

    Truffula

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    What is the something else they meant, heypresto? I'm still mystified.

    Yes, "struck with terror" is used, but what it means is something like "paralyzed by fright" - if you meant that, none of the sentences in the first post have that meaning, because of the associations heypresto mentions.
     

    hhtt

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    I am not sure what hhtt means by "terror" - the emotion or an act of terrorism.
    I also take help from translational correspondings in Turkish. So I would say that it is the emotions in the country and their people caused by that terrorist attack.

    Following the link in post #3, and noting the the usages there of 'struck by fear', I realised hhtt was probably trying to say something like dermott's suggestion, or indeed your 'paralysed by fear'.
    But isn't it still clear enough what I want to say, especially from the link Google

    Does link, which is in the same way with suggestion 3 in the first post, not reveal what I try to say?

    Thank you.
     

    hhtt

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    Yes, I think it may have become clear what you are trying to say, but the sentences in the OP do not achieve that.
    This, you have said, is confusing because does the link not show that it is a common usage? And "The U.S was struck with terror ... " is just like in the link. So why does the OP not achieve it?

    Thank you.
     

    Truffula

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    I will say that the reason is that a "terror strike" is known to have happened on Sept 11 and it consisted of an attack of terrorism.

    So, even though it would be idiomatic to say, for example, "The U.S. was struck with terror after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan" or "The U.S. was struck with terror over the Ebola threat" it would not be idiomatic to say "The U.S. was struck with terror on Sept. 11" because a native speaker would know that would be confusing and hard to interpret, so the native speaker would change the wording to "The U.S. was paralyzed with fear on Sept. 11" or something like that.

    Often the same set of words means something entirely different in different contexts that look almost identical.

    "The girl filled out the form" and "The girl filled out the dress" are two entirely different meanings of "filled out" - because of this, in a specific situation where there is a form called "the dress form" that a girl fills out to determine what sort of dress she will receive, we would not say "the girl filled out the dress form" because it would be very confusing. Same thing.
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    The whole concept of the sentence seems to me to be wrong - I recall 9/11 and did not see any evidence to indicate that the US was terrified - people were shocked, horrified, appalled, distraught, stunned, etc, - but not terrified.
     

    Truffula

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    Whether or not it is factually true - isn't really what is under discussion though - is it?
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    Only insomuch as that the OP might have chosen the wrong word contextually. It seems that the context had been confusing and, given what we now know, the correct participle would have been "stricken".
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top