From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: NEWS.22: `allows' without an object Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:13:14 +0200 Message-ID: <867iqrx4qd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1180437207 22883 80.91.229.12 (29 May 2007 11:13:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:13:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: bob@rattlesnake.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 29 13:13:26 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 1Hszdi-0008BS-5R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 13:13:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hszdh-0001zz-Ky for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:13:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hszdf-0001zu-3f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:13:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hszdd-0001zi-4a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:13:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hszdc-0001zf-Vh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:13:17 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hszdc-0003xd-CU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:13:16 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19839 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 13:13:11 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 25322 invoked from network); 29 May 2007 11:13:15 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 29 May 2007 11:13:15 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BD4E48F997; Tue, 29 May 2007 13:13:14 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Robert J. Chassell's message of "Tue\, 29 May 2007 10\:33\:03 +0000 \(UTC\)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:71940 Archived-At: "Robert J. Chassell" writes: > As Alan Mackenzie says, "allow" needs a direct object, > > > This version of `movemail' allows you to read mail from a wide range of > > ^^^ > > I think "allows reading mail" is also okay, and doesn't require "you". > > `Reading' serves (or maybe the object is the whole phrase, `reading > mail' -- I don't know.) > > I did not know. That explains a great deal. > > As Alan Mackenzie says, this instance needs `the person or thing being > empowered'. On its own, in English, the phrase `to read' fails. > > The English is confusing. It may be that you can only comfortably > learn this kind of construction when very young. > > 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. > 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 > humans getting permission from the `movemail' code, as `allow' > suggests, but gaining from it the power to act. I should read postings to their end before replying. Saves time. -- David Kastrup