Re: NEWS.22: `allows' without an object

["Ken Manheimer" <ken.manheimer@gmail.com>]

On 5/29/07, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

> > You could write, `enables reading mail', too; that makes more sense.
>
> Actually, I find that "enables" is suffering from a similar degree of
> awkwardness.  I'd probably use "facilitates reading mail ..." instead:
> this is an enabled-object-free verb, though a bit more pompous.  More
> closely related to "allows" would be "permits reading"; this is
> simpler than "facilitates", though, like "allows", slightly wrong as
> this is not a question of permission.

not sure what you mean by "enabled-object-free verb", but i often find
"facilitates" a lot more stuffy than "enables".  in any case, they
both avoid misuse of "allows".

> > Before Eli Zaretskii made this observation, I had not noticed the
> > distinction between gaining permission and gaining an ability, but
> > it is there and important.  After all, we are not talking about

(i think robert is referring to the point i made, not eli?)

> > humans getting permission from the `movemail' code, as `allow'
> > suggests, but gaining from it the power to act.

exactly.  this is one of those subtle misuses which continues because
it is common, yet (i doubt) is part of gradual language evolution,
because relaxing the meaning of "allow" so much would render it
ambiguous.
-- 
ken
http://myriadicity.net