> and programming languages can support or hinder expressing those properties clearly. Surely you would agree that if a language hinders one of such properties

> and programming languages can support or hinder expressing those properties clearly. Surely you would agree that if a language hinders one of such properties to extreme extent, then it would make sense to call such language "definitely non-[paradigm-name]"? For example, take Pascal without procedural/functional parameters: you can write functional programs, by manually applying defunctionalization and lambda-lifting... but it's so cumbersome that I'd argue such a dialect of Pascal is definitely not a functional language.