From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Ken Manheimer" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: NEWS.22: `allows' without an object Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:00:39 -0400 Message-ID: <2cd46e7f0705290900v32f8d117qe5e49728e5ce524c@mail.gmail.com> References: <867iqrx4qd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1180454684 32382 80.91.229.12 (29 May 2007 16:04:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bob@rattlesnake.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 29 18:04:41 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ht4Bd-0005SC-In for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 18:04:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht4Bd-0001Vj-6X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 12:04:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht47y-0007iZ-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 12:00:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht47w-0007h3-Uq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 12:00:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht47w-0007gp-LI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 12:00:52 -0400 Original-Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.240]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ht47u-0005h4-E3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 12:00:52 -0400 Original-Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c25so507953ana for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DcIcULRMeWIULKqfoll3RRUvx9ivhXZdnMDynosbaDHN+1bV6inP4tc1QsoqeZJt4JIX8nUHal3PuggZI0PkLyi/wmnufSUG/xz8DTesM89RqSqhp/L1s2rA6kExWtVjIn+7KI72RMnW/8HnJc5LXDVryohApwh+zPPJwQF5Vy8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=R6gwlYOXD0/6vqTuWmdzJquE+4SldmLPSdzdxjxGfB3EcDsgZOHz3zqKEuChdTF0hy+X7d1n1Vx2sZ7VmbAe+UVzRL+wSZFO0c5zfxOPBYZgFlPfTwd4lEzsUJ7NlXc1hWPhMCWRRWHCFzW0wyi3AVdNE324U0R7b2gTRd5bVr8= Original-Received: by 10.100.95.19 with SMTP id s19mr5276059anb.1180454439476; Tue, 29 May 2007 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.9.13 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2007 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <867iqrx4qd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:71950 Archived-At: On 5/29/07, David Kastrup wrote: > "Robert J. Chassell" 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