John is the only person who can operate the bank account (authorized signature) in the company.
Is it natural to say "Only John is allowed to operate the bank account"?
No. You can say Only John is allowed to access the bank account. Some people may complain that "access" shouldn't be used as a verb; this ngram comparing access and inflections of exemplify shows that it has been pretty widely adopted in the last thirty-five years. If you want an uncontroversial choice you can say Only John has access to the bank account.
I am not a teacher.
Only John is, however, not the problem.
Hi TdolOriginally Posted by Tdol
I don't get it. Can you explain it?
What does access mean in the above sentence? Can you explain it?
The verb means use; the noun (with "to") means the ability to use.
I am not a teacher.
I'd suggest that 'access' has a more limited meaning than 'use'. You can access something without using it. (You can telephone a help desk and hang up.) You have accessed the help desk, but you have only used the telephone. But we would not usually say that you've accessed the telephone (unless there was usually a problem with access to telephones).
But I think "access" is dealt with quite well by dictionaries, which are easily accessed online. Once you have access, you can use it.
Only John is fine-the problem is with the choice of verb.
Do you mean we can use "operate" i.e "Only John is allowed to operate the bank account."?
I have never heard "operate" in connection with bank account. In English we do not operate a bank account. The phrase is unnatural and meaningless.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks