Talk:enable

Propose delete / merge of senses
The example used has an awkward grammar, and is far too general and vague to infer a meaning any more specifc than definition #2. In fact, none of the senses seem distinguished. I propose a delete / merge of the senses into a single definition. I am looking up proceedures. See reference Help:Disputing_a_definition. Aha found them. Template added. Anon lynx (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

enable
RFD-redundant.

None of the senses [of enable] given seem distinguished.

Sense #1 specifically overlaps Sense #2. Sense #3 is redundant to #1 and #2. The example given is too general and vague to confer any additional meaning. No citation given.

Here is the version being referenced 8/8/2013 ~ 06:03 PM CT:


 * 1) To give strength or ability to; to make firm and strong.
 * , King James Bible, "1 Tim. i. 12"
 * Who hath enabled me.
 * 1) To make able (to do, or to be, something); to confer sufficient power upon; to furnish with means, opportunities, and the like; to render competent for; to empower; to endow.
 * 2) * 1711, October 13,, , number 195
 * Temperance gives Nature her full play, and enables her to exert herself in all her force and vigor.
 * 1) To allow a way out or excuse for an action.
 * 1) To allow a way out or excuse for an action.

I think the first two senses are redundant, but the third sense is distinct - the root of enabler. To enable someone to carry on bad habits is not to give them the ability to do those things, but to facilitate their habits by failing to take steps to prevent them. bd2412 T 23:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sense is to make one able, in a general sense. The second is to make one able to do something specific. It's almost like the difference between transitive and intransitive with the following infinitive clause acting like an indirect object. I'm sure there's a technical term for the difference, but I can't think of one.  For the original poster: unlike Wikipedia, we don't require citation for things like definitions (they're often a good idea in etymologies, though)- we strictly go by usage. For us, a citation is a reference to an example of usage, not to an authoritative work. I can attest that the third sense is in widespread use, especially in the context of psychotherapy and addiction counseling, so it no doubt meets WT:CFI. Even if it didn't that would be something to bring up at WT:RFV, not here. I also think you meant 8/2/2013- unless you can retrieve things from 6 days in the future... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 21:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)