This is going on a tangent now, but making things more clear and concise allows more options to fit on one screen which also reduces the need for endless submenus. This is a better experience because the user doesn't have to remember where the option is if they're all on one screen anyway, yet still broken up under subheadings.

Edit: As I stand massively downvoted at this point in time despite my comment being entirely factually correct, I invite any potential downvoter to consider the sentence “Give me apple” before reaching for the button.

The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium.

This form of imperative clause does have clear and consistent rules, whether you like them or not.

And just stating that your opinion is factually correct, when it is plainly not, reeeeeally doesn't help your cause.

Definitely no, "Give apple" is baby talk. Completely unacceptable in a choice. That's not proper English. I will die on that hill.

I'm actually shocked by the amount of people here who thinks it's acceptable and fine.

> Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts.

The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition. It's entirely analogous to what I wrote. Are you confused by the "me" in my sentence. "Me" is an indirect object here.

We basically have the same sentence. It just became entirely obvious that omitting the article is erroneous as soon as you had an indirect object. It's equally erroneous without it but apparently people have somehow convinced themselves it is acceptable after years of misuse in poor computer interfaces.

There is no officially sanctioned authority specifying the English language so "proper English" is not a defined concept in any way or form. You can choose to die on that hill, but you're fighting a war that doesn't even have defined sides.

] Give Apple

] Give Pear

Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options?

> The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition

My apologies, you're correct. I mistyped—I should have said "indirect object". That does not negate any of the rest of what I said.

Yes, I do.

That’s Sierra-like poorly phrased English to save characters in a constrained support. Completely incorrect in any context, inacceptable when you don’t have to save bits.

It’s only somewhat understandable because the zero article is used with proper name. Actually I find it interesting that you found the need to capitalise.

Consider “insert nut into bolt”, “slice onion thinly”, or “sprinkle vinegar over chips”.

I agree that your counter example does not work, but that’s due to the ambiguity introduced by having both an indirect and direct object. In a list of short instructions, “give apple to me” would not be ungrammatical.

Imperative mood: subject you is implied, so no need to write it.

https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/imperative_mood.htm

Zero article/bare noun phrase: allows omission of your, the, etc. in fixed instructions.

https://www.thoughtco.com/zero-article-grammar-1692619

Standard negation: "don’t" is the grammatical way to negate an imperative.

https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/imperative-mood

The rule about the zero article doesn't list the case of a noun after an imperative.

The first link is about the subject, not the object and the third is about negative imperative. Why are you posting links about completely unrelated things?

Once again, using a noun without an article this way is gramaticaly incorrect.

But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label.

English has different grammar rules in different contexts. For example, newspaper headlines omit articles all the time. That doesn't make the NYT grammatically incorrect on every page, though. Because they're using correct headline grammar, which is different from sentence grammar.

Agree to disagree. The reason it sounds robotic is because it's grammaticaly incorrect. The article is not optional before the object in this sentence.

Raise anchor, fix bayonets, hands up

I think I'm with crazygringo on this one, there's special command grammar.

Then there's informational signs, too. Wet floor is not an instruction. Labels generally aren't sentences.

Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.

I have never seen this.

I have seen plenty of "Please close the gate" or "Keep the gate closed". Sometimes, the article is eluded when the noun is subject "Gate must be kept closed" but imperative + noun without an article on a sign seem highly unusual to me. It feels weird so I would definitely notice.

I have seen "ring bell for assistance" however. It's jarring everytime. I must be the strange one.

(on toothpaste) "Squeeze tube from the bottom and flatten it as you go up."

(on a kerosene heater) "Rotate wick adjuster knob clockwise until it stops."

Australians tend to prefer more conversationally phrased directions from what I've seen, e.g., the rail station signs that read "Keep off the tracks and use the walkways provided to cross. Or catch a $100 fine. Don't say we didn't warn you, mate!"

Maybe it's a cultural thing.

Genuinely question, where do you live?

I imagine it can't be the US or the UK.

I'm wondering what your local dialect of English is that this construction is uncommon.

Since the second party is not present, that interpretation makes no sense and users wouldn't interpret it that way in native English.

Why repeat the premise of the question in each answer?

Even simpler is a checkbox:

[ ] Share my profile photo.