"for" vs "for" (vs "with")

[Rudy Troike]

It always interests me when linguists miscommunicate because of the polysemy
of words on their native language. I interpreted Susan's placing "for the
community" after "with" as representing the meaning of "for" as in "I work
for the University of Arizona", i.e. I am an employee, carrying out functions
defined by the institution (sometimes dynamically and interactively, to be
sure), while Scott's "for", preceding "with", I understood as in the sense
"I am working for [a particular political candidate, referendum issue, etc.]"
where, to use Fillmore's semantic roles, the community is "Benefactive", i.e.
where I see the community as benefiting from my altruistic efforts, 
either/both
within the community or outside as an advocate, and where I may have decided
on what will benefit them without asking their advice (colonial paternalism).
So both are right in their different sequencing; it's not splitting hairs, but
a very different set of semantic/participant roles, to use linguistic jargon,
with "for" being polysemic, or conflating different case-indications.

"With" is also polysemic, and even more slippery in interpretation, so it can
be vaguely comitative or deeply joint-participative. One would always have to
ask for more specificity where "with" is being claimed.

      Rudy