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

[Robert J. Chassell]

As Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> 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.)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote

    ... in most contexts, "blabla to read mail" and "blabla reading
    mail" translate into the exact same thing in French, so I tend to
    not know when to use which.

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.
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.

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                          GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
    address@hidden                         address@hidden
    http://www.rattlesnake.com                  http://www.teak.cc