# make able/enable



## kansi

Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *enabling* you to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you.

Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *making you able* to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you.

To make able and enable have the same meaning, right?
Does enable sound slightly smarter than make able?


----------



## The Newt

It's not really about making you "able." "Enabling" is the right word.


----------



## kansi

The Newt said:


> It's not really about making you "able." "Enabling" is the right word.


so first of all make you able and enable have different meanings?


----------



## kentix

"make you able" is not a normal, common phrase. "Giving you the ability" would be normal phrasing.


----------



## kansi

kentix said:


> "make you able" is not a normal, common phrase. "Giving you the ability" would be normal phrasing.


Then I am wondering why a dictionary gives the definition of it that says 
"to make someone able to do something, or to make something possible"(make someone able is used), althought make someone able isn't a common phrase?


----------



## kentix

Here's an ngram. I don't know how valid it is because there might be different contexts for each use, but if it's at all valid you can see there is very little use of "making you able".

Google Ngram Viewer

If you omit the clear winner, "enabling you", you see that "making you able" still comes in far behind.

Google Ngram Viewer


----------



## kansi

kentix said:


> Here's an ngram. I don't know how valid it is because there might be different contexts for each use, but if it's at all valid you can see there is very little use of "making you able".
> 
> Google Ngram Viewer
> 
> If you omit the clear winner, "enabling you", you see that "making you able" still comes in far behind.
> 
> Google Ngram Viewer


It seems like literally no one used and uses it. Giving you the ability


kentix said:


> Here's an ngram. I don't know how valid it is because there might be different contexts for each use, but if it's at all valid you can see there is very little use of "making you able".
> 
> Google Ngram Viewer
> 
> If you omit the clear winner, "enabling you", you see that "making you able" still comes in far behind.
> 
> Google Ngram Viewer


I see..but the phrase isn't wrong,right?
it's a correct ,far less common phrase.


Here this would be a few examples where "make you able" totally fits.
Do you think in this context the phrase works perfect?
Every drug addict has a different experience, but it’s important that you learn about the withdrawal symptoms and recovery processes involved with being addicted to the drug your loved one is taking. This will allow you to understand more about what they’re going through and give them the support they need. It will also help you to recognise signs such as withdrawal, relapse and more. All of this knowledge will *make you able* to give them better support throughout this challenging process.
What To Do If You Suspect That Someone You Know Is Addicted To Drugs


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> it's a correct ,far less common phrase.


No, I'd say it's unnatural in the examples you gave us.


kansi said:


> Then I am wondering why a dictionary gives the definition of it that says


That's the meaning. Dictionaries explain meaning. "Enable you" might mean "make you able" but that doesn't mean they're always interchangeable.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> No, I'd say it's unnatural in the examples you gave us.


But it's natural as a description of "enable" in a dictionary?


----------



## Barque

Whether something sounds natural or not is only relevant to speech and writing, since spoken and written language follow certain conventions. Dictionaries are mainly concerned with presenting the meaning of a word. Being "natural" doesn't come into it.


----------



## Andygc

kansi said:


> Do you think in this context the phrase works perfect?


No. It's not idiomatic and seems clumsy. As already said, "will enable you to" or "will give you the ability to".


----------



## kansi

Andygc said:


> No. It's not idiomatic and seems clumsy. As already said, "will enable you to" or "will give you the ability to".


even a sentence written by (probably) a native speaker where make you able is used is clumsy. Why is only a dictionary allowed to use the clumsy expression in the definition?


----------



## Andygc

Barque said:


> Dictionaries are mainly concerned with presenting the meaning of a word. Being "natural" doesn't come into it.


----------



## Barque

Compare these sentences:
_He's efficient.
He's someone who performs or functions effectively with the least waste of time and effort._

I think the first sentence conveys the meaning better. The second uses the dictonary definition of "efficient" but it doesn't sound as, well, efficient. 

To give you another and a not very good example, let's assume you live in Tokyo.

Would you say "I live in Tokyo" or "I live in a city that's a seaport in and the capital of Japan"?
tokyo - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


----------



## kansi

so it's fine to be unnatural or unidiomatic in dictionaries' definitions?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> so it's fine to be unnatural or unidiomatic in dictionaries' definitions?


I'm afraid you haven't got the point. A dictionary's purpose is to explain meanings, not construct natural sounding sentences. Sometimes the clearest way to explain a word's meaning might consist of words that'd be unnatural in speech.

That's how the language is. Isn't it the same in Japanese too, or in any other language?


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> I'm afraid you haven't got the point. A dictionary's purpose is to explain meanings, not construct natural sounding sentences. Sometimes the clearest way to explain a word's meaning might consist of words that'd be unnatural in speech.
> 
> That's how the language is. Isn't it the same in Japanese too, or in any other language?


Well I am guessing it's not same in Japanese dictionaries.Their definitions does sound natural and at least idiomatic.
I tried searching for some Japanese words but their definitions sound natural.We have other ways to convey the same information but the explaination in a dictionary is still  idiomatic...



Barque said:


> Would you say "I live in Tokyo" or "I live in a city that's a seaport in and the capital of Japan"?
> tokyo - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


I know the second one is weird. But does the same apply to enable and make someone able?
Is this like same to when we look up the definition of eat in an dictionary,
which is to put or take food into the mouth, chew it (= crush it with the teeth), and swallow it and thoght that "we ate a huge burger today" and "we took a huge burger in my mouth , chew it..have the exact same meaning?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> But does the same apply to enable and make someone able?


Yes.


kansi said:


> Is this like same to when we look up the definition of eat in an dictionary,
> which is to put or take food into the mouth, chew it (= crush it with the teeth), and swallow it and thoght that "we ate a huge burger today" and "we took a huge burger in my mouth , chew it..have the exact same meaning?


Yes.

Using "making you able" for "enabling you" perhaps doesn't sound _as _weird as the above two examples, but it's only a matter of degree.


----------



## kansi

So,


kansi said:


> Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *enabling* you to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you.
> 
> Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *making you able* to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you.


This is as wrong as
saying ''we ate a huge burger today." and "we took a huge burger in my mouth , chew it..''are same in meaning?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> This is as wrong as
> saying ''we ate a huge burger today." and "we took a huge burger in my mouth , chew it..''are same in meaning?


As I said above, "making you able" for "enabling you" may not sound odd to the same extent as your burger example (perhaps because it's shorter), but it still sounds unnatural.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> As I said above, "making you able" for "enabling you" may not sound odd to the same extent as your burger example (perhapas because it's shorter), but it still sounds unnatural.


I now have a basic idea why It's wrong but I don't fully understand that yet..


----------



## Barque

It's not wrong as in ungrammatical.
It's wrong as in unnatural. The reason is that it isn't said that way. It's not the practice to say it that way.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> It's not the practice to say it that way.


you meant there are some caese l can use "make you able"with sounding unnatural?


----------



## Barque

No, I didn't mean that. "It's not the practice" doesn't mean "It's not always the practice" or "It's sometimes the practice". 

Having said that, you might possibly find some sentences where "make/making you able" is used without sounding unnatural but it'd need a specific structure and context.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> "It's not the *practice*" doesn't mean "It's not always the practice" or "It's sometimes the practice".


Sorry what does this "practice" mean..?


----------



## Barque

practice: a way of doing something that is normal or customary.
(WR dictionary)

I was saying it's not the practice to use "making you able" instead of "enabling you". Since you then asked:


kansi said:


> you meant there are some caese l can use "make you able"with sounding unnatural?


I replied saying that's not what I meant.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> practice: a way of doing something that is normal or customary.
> (WR dictionary)
> 
> I was saying it's not the practice to use "making you able" instead of "enabling you". Since you then asked:
> 
> I replied saying that's not what I meant.


you are saying how I use making you able isn't a way of doing something normal ?


----------



## heypresto

Barque is saying that "making you able" is not the usual way we say it. It's not the natural way we say it. We usually/naturally say 'enabling you'. And I agree with him.


----------



## Edinburgher

Frankly, I think "enabling you" is not the best word for the context.  It's almost as bad as "making you able".  I'd use "allowing you".

The need for the -ing form is the result of what comes before it, namely the dash after "is now available".  I'd use a full stop instead of a dash, and write:  _... is now available.  This _(or _it_)_ *allows you* to ..._


----------



## Barque

Yes, I agree. I'd only read the second part of each sentence.


----------



## Packard

Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *making you able* to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you.   (*Does not sound idiomatic as others have said above*).

Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *enabling you* to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you.   (*Idiomatic, but perhaps more formal than required here*.)

Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *allowing you* to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you. (*This is how I would expect to hear it in the USA in this context*.)


----------



## kansi

Packard said:


> Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *making you able* to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you.   (*Does not sound idiomatic as others have said above*).
> 
> Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *enabling you* to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you.   (*Idiomatic, but perhaps more formal than required here*.)
> 
> Our online Click & Collect service, Westfield Direct, is now available - *allowing you* to purchase food from your favourite retailers and collect it at a time that suits you. (*This is how I would expect to hear it in the USA in this context*.)


why does 'make it enable' sound idiomatic or is it idiomatic to  you?


----------



## Packard

kansi said:


> why does 'make it enable' sound idiomatic or is it idiomatic to  you?


Not "make it enable", but "enabling".  

Idiomatic is not governed by rules.  It is governed by convention.  If you never hear a phrase in normal conversation or in writings, it is likely to sound "not idiomatic".  

In this case there are far more conventional phrases that do sound idiomatic and are the more likely word choices.  When you veer away from the anticipated phrasing it sounds "not idiomatic".  

That is the case here.  "Enabling" and to a greater extent (in the USA) "allowing" are frequently used in this context.  "Making you able" is something I would never expect to hear from a native American speaker, and apparently in the UK based upon Edinburgher's post #29, which mine nearly parrots.  

I am basically repeating Edinburgher's post in a different format.


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> *why*  Why does 'make it enable' sound idiomatic or is it idiomatic to  you?


(Still ignoring the rule to start each sentence with a capital letter   ?)
Where did you see "make it enable"?


----------



## Packard

JulianStuart said:


> (Still ignoring the rule to start each sentence with a capital letter   ?)
> Where did you see "make it enable"?


I looked back for "make it enable" too, but just plowed on.  Maybe he's an up and coming e.e. cummings.

Or maybe a subscriber to the Cormac McCarthy school of writing. 

Top 10 Authors Who Ignored The Basic Rules of Punctuation

Cormac McCarthy, said, _ Quotation marks – “weird little marks,” as he puts it in an interview with Oprah – find themselves shunned in his works, which include No Country for Old Men (adapted into an Academy-award winning film) and the Pulitzer-Prize winning, post-apocalyptic novel The Road. “I believe in periods, in capitals, in the occasional comma, and that’s it,” McCarthy told Oprah. *“I mean, if you write properly you shouldn’t have to punctuate.” *_


----------



## kansi

heypresto said:


> Barque is saying that "making you able" is not the usual way we say it. It's not the natural way we say it. We usually/naturally say 'enabling you'. And I agree with him.


I see. but I could find some news articles with 'make you able' , that probably


Barque said:


> A dictionary's purpose is to explain meanings, not construct natural sounding sentences. Sometimes the clearest way to explain a word's meaning might consist of words that'd be unnatural in speech.


Sorry  I still don't really get this meaning. sometimes clear explanation doesn't sound natural. Sounding unatural ,clear explanation is always unidiomatic, isn't it?Do native English speakers sometimes speak sounding natural things and that's fine??


----------



## JulianStuart

Packard said:


> Top 10 Authors Who Ignored *The Basic Rules of Punctuation*
> _ “*I believe in *periods, in *capitals*, ..._


  
 This is one you can't ignore


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> (Still ignoring the rule to start each sentence with a capital letter   ?)
> Where did you see "make it enable"?


Well in a different thread you told me how to search a word actually used in a real world.That is put words with '' ''in a search box. I found a lot of it.https://www.google.com/search?q=%27%27make+it+enable%27%27&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=ivn&sxsrf=ALeKk02XG4npvG8Ath5-xrAjBHfxnyYGRQ:1586276781966&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRwurA3dboAhWGFIgKHfL2ApEQ_AUoA3oECAwQAw&biw=360&bih=512&dpr=3
I don't expect all of them are written by native English speakers but there seem to be stil a decent number of it.


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> I see. but I could find some news articles with 'make you able' , that probably
> 
> Sorry  I still don't really get this meaning. sometimes clear explanation doesn't sound natural. Sounding unatural ,clear explanation is always unidiomatic, isn't it?Do native English speakers sometimes speak sounding natural things and that's fine??


You still seem to have missed the point "dictionary definitions are NOT INTENDED TO BE NATURAL OR IDIOMATIC":they are intended to "COMMUNICATE THE MEANING" of one word, *using other words*. As mentioned many times, you cannot learn the language from dictionaries, only the meaning of words.  It is often the case that the only "natural and idiomatic" way of expressing the meaning of a word is using the word itself. Using other words to explain often sounds unnatural  but conveys the MEANING.


----------



## Myridon

kansi said:


> Sorry  I still don't really get this meaning. sometimes clear explanation doesn't sound natural. Sounding unatural ,clear explanation is always unidiomatic, isn't it?Do native English speakers sometimes speak sounding natural things and that's fine??


A dictionary definition must be short and must not use the word that it is defining even if the word itself is always used instead of the words in the definition.  It must make a paraphrase where no good paraphrase exists.
This ring is made of silver.   
This ring is made of a white metallic element, used for making mirrors, coins, photographic chemicals, and conductors.


----------



## heypresto

Dictionaries define words. They explain what a word means. And often (usually? always?) the way they describe what a word means is not something that we would say. It's not natural or idiomatic.

For instance, did you 'eat' the burger you mention above, or did you "put or take it into your mouth, chew it, and and swallow it", as a dictionary may say to define 'eat'? Did you do this at a 'table', or at "a piece of furniture consisting of a flat top supported on one or more legs"? And were you sitting on a 'chair', or "a seat, esp. for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back"?

I suspect you ate your burger at a table while sitting on a chair.

Crossed with, and agreeing with, JulianStuart and Myridon.


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> Well in a different thread you told me how to search a word actually used in a real world.That is put words with '' ''in a search box. I found a lot of it.https://www.google.com/search?q=%27%27make+it+enable%27%27&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=ivn&sxsrf=ALeKk02XG4npvG8Ath5-xrAjBHfxnyYGRQ:1586276781966&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRwurA3dboAhWGFIgKHfL2ApEQ_AUoA3oECAwQAw&biw=360&bih=512&dpr=3
> I don't expect all of them are written by native English speakers but there seem to be stil a decent number of it.


You are right they are not and they are errors.*
A much better way to look for English phrases is the Ngram viewer. The internet is filled with errors and Google finds them, so it is a bad way to do such research
This link tells you that the phrase "make it enable" in not found in the database of millions of books printed in English.

* I expect you could find many English sentences on the internet that do not begin with capital letters, too, but they would still be errors.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> You still seem to have missed the point "dictionary definitions are NOT INTENDED TO BE NATURAL OR IDIOMATIC":they are intended to "COMMUNICATE THE MEANING" of one word, *using other words*. As mentioned many times, you cannot learn the language from dictionaries, only the meaning of words.  It is often the case that the only "natural and idiomatic" way of expressing the meaning of a word is using the word itself. Using other words to explain often sounds unnatural  but conveys the MEANING.


so when you look a dictatory for a word, you think many of the definitions of words sound unidiomatic and unatural, but they still follow the grammer?


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> *so* So when you look a dictatory dictionary for a word, you think many of the definitions of words sound unidiomatic and unatural, but they still follow the grammer grammar.


  Frequently, yes. They use expressions that we would not normally use because, well, we would use the word itself  Definitions usually are not complete sentences so grammar is not a concern.  That's what the "in context" examples are for.


----------



## Packard

kansi said:


> so when you look a dictatory _dictionary_ for a word, you think many of the definitions of words sound unidiomatic and unatural, but they still follow the grammer *grammar*?



If you are not conversant in English you will not know what is idiomatic or not.  You need to immerse yourself in the language (read, listen, speak) to learn what is idiomatic and what is not. 

Spelling, however you can get from a dictionary.

Crossed posts with JulianStuart


----------



## DonnyB

The original question has been answered, to the best of members' ability.  The more general topic of why some things are not idiomatic, and why dictionaries choose the definitions they do, is straying well outside the remit of our language forum and I'm therefore now closing this thread as further discussion is unlikely to produce any sort of definitive answer.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions, which I hope kansi has found useful.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

