There are a few uses of adjectives connected with "affect" and "disaffect" which could scarcely be called consistent.

"Affected", usually refers to a behaviour (or accent) adopted, e.g. to improve one's standing, or merge into a social class or setting.

(For effect <g>.)

For example, an "affected" upper-class accent, might be represented as, "I say, portah ! Carreh this beag [bag] to my compartment !"

However, "disaffected", does not usually mean, natural or sincere. It usually refers to groups of people and means discontented, sullen or rebellious.

("Unaffected" is valid enough, and does mean, unmoved, unimpressed or naturally stolid.)


My complaints about English usage are usually directed to those in petty authority, who use circumlocutory jargon designed to impress. e.g. Police officers, who say "There is a hostage situation, involving a male who has a revolver-type weapon". (Translation: a man armed with a revolver has taken hostages.)

Or too many of the schoolteachers I remember, who could come out with long-winded constructions such as "What you've got to do, is you've got to take etc". What was wrong with, "You must take", or "You take". (Or even "Take", though perhaps that's getting a bit too peremptory, if used consistently.)