not authorized to

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "not authorized to" is correct and usable in written English. You can use it when indicating that someone lacks permission or approval to perform a specific action. Example: "She is not authorized to access the confidential files." Alternative expressions include "not permitted to" and "not allowed to."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

They were not authorized to speak publicly.

The New York Times

"We're not authorized to accept the money".

The New York Times - Travel

"I'm not authorized to work because of my status".

The New York Times

Generally, bankruptcy courts are not authorized to conduct jury trials.

The New York Times - Sports

They were not authorized to speak on the record.

The New York Times

But Kelly is not authorized to clear Rodriguez.

The New York Times - Sports

The economist was not authorized to speak publicly.

The New York Times

That person was not authorized to talk about the investigation.

The New York Times

"We are not authorized to go into the data.

The Guardian

"They are not authorized to advertise on it".

The New York Times

"I'm not authorized to be frustrated," he said gamely.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "not authorized to" to clearly indicate a lack of permission or legal right to perform an action. This phrase is suitable for formal and professional contexts, ensuring clarity and avoiding ambiguity.

Common error

Avoid assuming that someone is "not authorized to" act based on incomplete information. Always verify the specific scope of their responsibilities and the limitations placed upon them to ensure your assertion is accurate.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "not authorized to" functions as an adjective phrase modifying a verb in the infinitive form. It's used to express a lack of permission, power, or right to perform a specific action. Ludwig AI confirms its correct usage.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

40%

Formal & Business

30%

Science

20%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

5%

Wiki

3%

Reference

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "not authorized to" is a versatile phrase used to indicate a lack of permission or legal right to perform an action. As Ludwig AI confirms, the phrase is grammatically correct and commonly used in formal contexts, particularly in News & Media, Formal & Business, and Science. When writing, it's essential to ensure that the assertion of lacking authorization is accurate and based on complete information. Alternative phrases like ""not permitted to"" or ""not allowed to"" can be used depending on the context. Overall, "not authorized to" is a valuable tool for expressing limitations and prohibitions clearly and effectively.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

not permitted to

This alternative uses "permitted" instead of "authorized", indicating a lack of formal allowance.

not allowed to

This alternative employs "allowed" instead of "authorized", suggesting a more general lack of permission.

prohibited from

This alternative uses "prohibited", indicating a formal ban or restriction.

forbidden to

This alternative uses "forbidden", suggesting a strong prohibition.

not entitled to

This alternative uses "entitled", indicating a lack of right or claim.

not empowered to

This alternative uses "empowered", suggesting a lack of delegated power or authority.

not sanctioned to

This alternative uses "sanctioned", implying a lack of official approval or endorsement.

not cleared to

This alternative uses "cleared", suggesting a lack of security clearance or approval for access.

without authorization to

This alternative rephrases the expression to emphasize the absence of authorization.

lacking the authority to

This alternative emphasizes the absence of the necessary power or right.

FAQs

How can I use "not authorized to" in a sentence?

You can use "not authorized to" to indicate that someone lacks the permission or right to perform a specific action. For example: "The staff is "not authorized to" access these files."

What's the difference between "not authorized to" and "not allowed to"?

"Not authorized to" often implies a formal lack of permission, usually from an official source or authority, while "not allowed to" is a more general term for lacking permission. For instance, an employee might be "not authorized to" speak to the press, but a child might be "not allowed to" eat candy before dinner.

Which is correct, "not authorized to" or "unauthorized to"?

Both phrases can be correct, but they have slightly different nuances. "Not authorized to" directly states the lack of authorization, while "unauthorized to" implies that something is being done without authorization. Often they can be used interchangeably, but "not authorized to" is typically clearer and more direct.

What can I say instead of "not authorized to"?

You can use alternatives like "not permitted to", "not allowed to", or "prohibited from" depending on the context.