Talk:authorize
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Evaluate the senses: are the first two distinct and accurate? Should the third be folded in to one of them? Should the second be removed? Are any senses missing? Note the RFV, which I just closed. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- They all feel like one definition to me. I shall await rebuttals. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
"(transitive, US) In American English usage only, to authorise frequently not only has the precise meaning above, but also means that the action being authorised was actually carried out, or at least started." What the? ---> Tooironic 11:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Tosh, speedy delete please. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could possibly be a usage note, but probably not. It's true that "the government authorized the/a raid", "the judge authorized their apprehension" and "the executive authorized the/a takeover bid" all imply that the raid/apprehension/bid were carried out, but I think that's implied by any statement with that form (past tense, non-perfect) / meaning (someone was given the ability to do something). "The commander gave the sailors permission to leave", "the council empowered the task force to act", ... all imply the granted ability was used. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that a very strong implication of completion can be drawn from the use of the word (deprecated template usage) authorize, even in a past tense. There are particular classes of situations in which the implication might be stronger, but that does not seem to be inherent in the word, but rather in the situation/context. If the action authorized is one that the entity that carries it out wants to perform but is constrained by the lack of authorization, then a past-tense authorization makes the execution highly likely. But the converse is true also. If the entity that carries out the action doesn't want to execute the action, the authorization is not likely to imply execution and may imply lack of execution. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm removing it now. Authorize simply doesn't imply that the action was carried out, in any tense, in American or any other variety of English. Even -sche's examples aren't true: "the government authorized a raid" means only that government okayed the raid, it doesn't mean or even imply that the raid has already been carried out. —Angr 14:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, both the remaining definitions imply that only a person can be the direct object of authorize, which -sche's examples prove isn't the case. Someone better a definiton-writing than me may want to rewrite or add to them. —Angr 14:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that a very strong implication of completion can be drawn from the use of the word (deprecated template usage) authorize, even in a past tense. There are particular classes of situations in which the implication might be stronger, but that does not seem to be inherent in the word, but rather in the situation/context. If the action authorized is one that the entity that carries it out wants to perform but is constrained by the lack of authorization, then a past-tense authorization makes the execution highly likely. But the converse is true also. If the entity that carries out the action doesn't want to execute the action, the authorization is not likely to imply execution and may imply lack of execution. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Resolved. Note my and others' changes to the entry. Sending to RFC. - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)