Allow for vs allow

[ostap77]

"His new invention allows for him to make money".

OR

"His new invention allows him to make money".

Would there be a difference between the two sentences?

 

[charliedeut]

IMO, the first one means there is a possibility he will make money from his invention (that is, he hasn't found a buyer/investor for it), while the second ine says that he is actually making money from the invention.

But maybe native speakers will say something different.

 

[SoothingDave]

The first sentence isn't right. "To allow for" something is a different meaning.

It should take 45 minutes to get there, but let's leave an hour early to allow for traffic.

 

[5jj]

Even the second one sounds odd to me. The income from his invention may allow him to take expensive holidays, but I don't see how the invention allows him to make money.

 

[SoothingDave]

Maybe he invented a printing press. ;-)

 

[ostap77]

"Implementing it, as well as negotiating a successor to the status of forces agreement that allows for US troops to be on Iraqi soil until the end of 2011, depends on what sort of Iraqi government comes into power."

Would "allows for US troops to.." be wrong here? Should it be "allows US troops to..."?

 

[bhaisahab]

"Implementing it, as well as negotiating a successor to the status of forces agreement that allows for US troops to be on Iraqi soil until the end of 2011, depends on what sort of Iraqi government comes into power."

Would "allows for US troops to.." be wrong here? No. Should it be "allows US troops to..."? No.

Bhai.

 

[ostap77]

What's the difference between "..allows for him to make money.." and "...allows for US troops to be...."? Why is the latter incorrect while the former is OK?

 

[5jj]

What's the difference between "..allows for him to make money.." and "...allows for US troops to be...."? Why is the latter i[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] incorrect while the former is OK?

Bhai said the latter was not incorrect.

 

[emsr2d2]

What's the difference between "..allows for him to make money.." and "...allows for US troops to be...."? Why is the latter is incorrect while the former is OK?

You have that the wrong way round.

"... allows for him to make money ..." is incorrect.
"... allows for US troops to be ..." is correct.

 

[ostap77]

Sorry you all for expressing myself in the wrong way!

"... allows for him to make money ..." is incorrect.
"... allows for US troops to be ..." is correct.

What's the difference?

 

[Barb_D]

A legal agreement may permit something. It allows for it. It gives leeway that makes it possible.

 

[ostap77]

Couldn't we interpret US troops as a unit of soldiers? Wouldn't it be rather somebody than something?

 

[bhaisahab]

Couldn't we interpret US troops as a unit of soldiers? Wouldn't it be rather somebody than something?

The agreement that allows for US troops... is "something" not "somebody".

 

[Barb_D]

You are really barking up the wrong tree here.

There are two uses of "allow for" that occur to me.
One is a legal-type agreement: It allows for a 3-day period to change your mind. It allows for either side to bring in a mediator. Whatever.

The other is when you are planning. It means "take this into account when you are planning." Make sure you allow for Friday afternoon traffic when you leave for the aiport.

Otherwise, stop trying to say things like "The teacher allowed for the children to play outside."

 

[emsr2d2]

"The teacher allowed for the children to play outside." - As Barb said, incorrect.
The teacher allowed the children to play outside. (Correct)
The teacher permitted the children to play outside. (Means the same)

I was just thinking along the same lines as Barb and I had come up with much the same:

Allow for = take into account
Allow = permit

As Barb said, the use of "allow for" with the "agreement ... US troops on the ground ..." is because it is a legal type of agreement or permission.