'Referred to' versus 'Referred as'


The following sentences are the invention of my mind. Just snub the question if it does not make any sense to you please.

1- He was referred [color=red]to the richest person in the city.
2- He was referred [color=red]as the richest person in the city.

I think, the first sentence means that he was introduced/ taken to the richest person in the city. While the second one means that he was considered/ called the richest person in the city.

Do we agree?


Hi Tom,

Yes, you’re spot on with both. Sometimes refer to can mean sent as a doctor’s patient to a specialist Charlie went to see the doctor who was not absolutely sure what was wrong with him and so he arranged for Charlie to be referred to a specialist.


Hi Tom

I was uncomfortable with your “referred as” example. It may be a British vs American English thing. But, I changed it to what I would say: referred to as = called


Hi Tom,

Yes, mea culpa, oh dear, what a silly billy. Amy is quite right and she kindly covered up my slip by saying it was a British thing-I was so anxious not to snub you Tom that I said you were spot on. So let me put the matter staright. Alack, alas you were not spot on and it has to be referred to as

Reminds me - I need some new glasses.