Re: Basic Voice ??s: OK for Software to "allow", "let", "enable",--- "pr ovide" and so forth?

[Chris <cud -at- telecable -dot- es>]

I have a problem with computers, software, or functions (CSF) that allow 
or let me do anything.  That construct implies there are things the CSF 
will not allow me to do.  Untrue - I am a free agent restricted only by 
laws of man and nature.  To say a CSF grants me permission to do 
something implies that it has power over me, and insults my humanity. 
The question is whether the CSF is *able* to do what *I want* it to 
do...  If not, I'll find another tool.  I am in control here.

Not only is the construct limiting, insulting, and formally incorrect, 
it also allows you to use unnecessarily baroque language thereby letting 
you write things with less precision.  (Could you write with less 
precision if that particular construct didn't allow you to?  I wonder...)

You can use the CSF to accomplish a task (perhaps), and you may even 
*want* to.  And I suppose there are some tasks you can't perform without 
the prosthetics of a computer - stabilizing a stealth fighter in flight 
or visualizing the Mandelbroot set, for example.  But in general we're 
not talking about that level of computing.  Not only that, but I doubt 
the flight manual for a stealth fighter says things like, "The xyz 
feature set *allows* you to stabilize the aircraft."  I suspect the 
statement is more direct - "The xyz feature set *stabilizes* the 
aircraft", or "The xyz command *plots* the Mandelbroot set."

In other words, either you can *use* a CSF to perform a task, or the CSF 
simply performs the task for you.  The CSF most certainly doesn't grant 
you permission.

At least, in my overblown (not humble) opinion, that's what's wrong with 
the construct.  (Would you believe I've had this argument before?)