Thanks a lot.
I am a Korean man.
I appreciate your kindness.

Dear soojin: I think you have the distinction of being our first participant from Korea. I hope you will make many more posts as interesting as your first. Bill Hunt

Yes, indeed, welcome to you, soojin! Peace be with you and yours.
Max, thank you for posting the roots of these two words. To strike, and to cast down. I'd been thinking that afflict implied a less deliberate act, and I suppose casting down is somewhat less sure than striking. Though both striking and casting down are deliberate acts, it seems to me that if you cast something down, you are less sure of hitting your target than if you strike at it directly. (In the case of casting down, say, a written accusation on to a table, yes, you will hit the table, but your real target is the accused person--who may get off scot-free.) If you cast seeds, some will land in the furrow, and some will not.

Let me see--can I afflict someone with something? If I have a contagious illness and pass it to another, have I afflicted them? Can kidnappers afflict their victims, in that syndrome that I can't think of the name of, where the victim becomes sympathetic to his or her captor? That is, I mean afflict them with loss of self, or self-esteem?

Let me see--can I afflict someone with something? If I have a contagious illness and pass it to another, have I afflicted them?

I trust someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say you were afflicted by the illness, not the person. IOW the illness is your affliction.

I just made up that IOW. Is that a legit abbr?

Hi, 'gator! [blowing kiss e] "IOW"--hey, I got it! Have no idea if it's "legal". Yes, I see your point, and agree. But what if I do something deliberately to give that person the illness? Or do something that I know will cause a permanent disability? (No, I'm not planning to--just sometimes like to carry hypotheticals to the extreme!)
Hmm, guess I have inflicted an injury that causes them to be afflicted, right? I was just trying to stretch for any situation where a person could afflict someone. Soojin, I think we're going to have to say that we can cause an affliction, but that we can't afflict anybody.

Greetings from a very wet and windy England soojin
are you looking forward to the World Cup? ( I am )

the Duncster

Affect is also used as a noun in psychology and psychiatry, where one of the key observation's in making a diagnosis is a person's affect (the first syllable is stressed and rhymes with half.) Other than that, though, affect is always a verb.

But what if I do something deliberately to give that person the illness?

then I think you'd INFECT the person (with an affliction?)

boronia, you take the very words from my mouth!

"afflict", I think, is a passive word. One says, "I am afflicted with boils." but that doesn't indicate the agent. You know not whence cometh the boils.
"Inflict", on the other hand, is active, and I can say, "You inflicted me with boils," which pins down the agent precisely.

>what I was taking acception to was this

um... Bill? <nudge>

Come now, tsuwm - there are occasions when we have to make exceptions, you know!

Inflict vs. afflict: Perhaps the following will serve as a mnemonic:

You will read in Professor Schmunk's treatise,
In the words of the famed Epictetus,
The curious lore
That young girls by the score
Are afflicted with athlete's foetus.

The two words have very similar meanings, and in theory you could use either without losing any quality of meaning. However, usage dictates, for as long as we choose to let it, that you don't afflict things on people, you inflict them.

Greetings, soojin! And thanks for introducing this intriguing thread! Stick around!

So, we can inflict an affliction,
but can we afflict an infliction?

Dear WO'N: "but can we afflict an infliction? "

The usage seems to be that people to not "afflict" things. The devil can do both.

Dear wwh, whitmanO'Neil, Capital Kiwi,....
Thank you very much.