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

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

"Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

> As Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> 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