Talk:act for

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

act for

"To make decisions in (someone's) place". Isn't this just [[act]] [[for]]? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's To make decisions in (someone's) place; to take over and act in the role of (someone who can not be present); to represent (someone) in an official capacity. act doesn't mean "make decisions" or "represent in an official capacity". Perhaps it should be tightened to focus on the officialness of it? It's called a phrasal verb by Cambridge and McGraw-Hill, plus listed here. WurdSnatcher (talk)

• I can't say as I agree with either Cambridge or McGraw Hill. “To [VERB] for (someone)” is an exceedingly generic construction. “To chew for someone”, “to shop for someone”, “to read aloud for someone” -- these all express the same sense from for as the construction “to act for someone”. As such, act for doesn't seem all that idiomatic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

But none of those are official. "act" doesn't normally imply doing something in an official or legal capacity. WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Many senses are limited in context, and thus in what types of words they appear with: we don't need entries for run water or run a candidate just because you can't run water for governor or run a candidate for a bath. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My thought was, does act for always mean to speak for. Can act for not be also non-verbal action, therefore broadening the definition to 'to act on behalf of someone', hence, clear SoP. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would clear it up: "act" can mean "to do something" (this committee will act on your proposal), doesn't have to imply speaking. "act for" does, I think, require speaking (or at least signing documents, which is leqally equivalent to speaking). WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep - not SoP. Act here has a very specific/restricted legalese sense that is not covered by any of the usual uses of act. Try it with other preps, to act with cannot mean "to make decisions with someone", to act beside cannot mean "to make decisions next to someone". However, "I'm acting for XXX" can also be expressed "I'm acting on XXX's behalf", so perhaps this phrase needs coverage.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't it? "France says to act with Germany for euro." "Alderman-elect Schilling of the Twenty-fourth Assembly District announced last night that he proposed to act with the Republicans in the organization of the incoming Board of Aldermen." Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Expand act as required. Equinox ◑ 03:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 05:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete More than anything, I think the definition is misleading and simply wrong. To "act for" has a broader meaning than just "to make decisions for" – it means "to represent" in general ("Nicola Sturgeon vows [Scottish National Party] will act for entire UK". Really, it's just the broadest meaning of act ("do something") + for. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I too think it's act (perform an action or actions) + for, and speaking of course is a specific action so falls well within the definition of 'perform an action'. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC) (apologies for later signature Renard Migrant (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC))

Delete per Smurray. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay - I capitulate, to an extent. "act for" may not be a "good" phrasal verb - esp. as you can act on someone's behalf. However, I think that it is wrong to say that the sense is simply act ("do something") + for ... I think there is a specific legal sense which means "to make legally binding decisions (for someone or some entity who is absent)" - which is entirely different to the sense in Smurray's example of France acting with Germany, which is a case of France representing France, or the Scottish National Party acting for the UK, which means to do something for another's benefit.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The purported special legal meaning of act for is almost certainly to be found in what might be special legal meanings of act. Various legal dictionaries and glossaries have perhaps as many as a dozen definitions of act (noun), some of which presumably are associated with uses of act (verb). (See “act”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. under business heading for examples.)

AFAICT, act for has no meaning distinct from act on behalf of in any of those definitions in any context. DCDuring TALK 13:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that we need a special verb sense for act that covers the meaning captured here in this SoP entry, because the current entry for act doesn't cover it.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get your full position. We are in agreement apparently. DCDuring TALK 23:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted [[act for]] and added a sense "To do something that causes a change binding on the doer: act on behalf of John" to [[act]]. Please edit that sense as needed for accuracy, clarity, etc. Striking.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Template:rfv-bottom