There seems to be a tendency to use disconnect as a noun, as in an editorial column this week that referred to a "vast disconnect" between government and ordinary people. Is this now considered acceptable? And are there other verbs that are being recast as nouns without benefit of affixes?

I tried to think of a better way of saying it, and could not immediately improve on it. So I am tempted to say it is useful, and therefore permissible.

Well, there's affect - which is dealt with elsewhere, I think. This was a jargon word with a discrete meaning in some arcane subject or other, I believe, but is now being used increasingly in ordinary (/) conversation, usually where I would say "effect" (or use a totally different - more correct(!) word.)

> a "vast disconnect" between government and ordinary people.

Wouldn't a 'lack of engagement' or a 'lack of social allegiance', or something like that have been acceptable, if not clearer in this case, ST? Or if one is determined to use a noun, then why not 'disconnection', 'disengagement', or simply 'uninvolvement'? Sounds like an unimaginative and lackluster use of language to me.

tired@misantropist.net

why not 'disconnection', 'disengagement', or simply 'uninvolvement'?

I thought gap might do it.

> I thought gap might do it.

A 'gulf' or 'rift' might be more suitable in this case, don't you think?

Have to go with disconnection ... as I infer the writer was writing about a change - i.e. where once citizens we connected to government now they are not.
More specific than gap, rift, etc which gives no allusion to a previous state of involvement.