appointed with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "appointed with" is not correct in standard written English.
It is typically used incorrectly when trying to convey that someone has been assigned or scheduled for a meeting or appointment. Example: "She was appointed with the task of leading the project."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Rooms, often appointed with chandeliers, start at 450 Swiss francs.

The New York Times - Travel

The upper floor is appointed with weirdly ornate Soviet chandeliers.

The Economist

Its nine rooms are appointed with a subtle nautical touch.

The New York Times - Travel

Superbly appointed with impeccable attention to detail and understated elegance.

The Guardian - Travel

Under the new system, public prosecutors are to be appointed, with independent powers of investigation.

The Economist

The gym, too, is well appointed, with a yoga room and a big deck.

The New York Times - Travel

He was arrested, Mirandized, charged, appointed with legal counsel, and tried in a civilian court.

The Economist

The Soviet of People's Commissaries was appointed, with Lenin at their head.

Encyclopedia Britannica

A new editor was appointed with specific instructions to find out what was going on.

The New York Times

The room itself was beautifully appointed with modern yet comfortable furnishings.

The New York Times - Travel

Appointed with overstuffed chairs and sofas, these landings are places to hang out and relax.

The New York Times - Arts

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When describing appointments or assignments, use stronger verbs like "assigned", "selected", or "tasked" to enhance clarity and professionalism. For example, instead of saying "He was appointed with leading the team", say "He was assigned to lead the team".

Common error

Avoid using "appointed with" when you mean someone was assigned a role or responsibility. "Appointed with" often sounds awkward; instead, use "appointed to" or verbs like "assigned", or "tasked".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "appointed with" functions as a linking phrase, typically used to connect someone's appointment to a subsequent responsibility or attribute. However, as Ludwig AI indicates, this construction is often grammatically questionable.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

34%

Encyclopedias

9%

Science

8%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Wiki

1%

Academia

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, while the phrase "appointed with" is frequently used, it is often considered grammatically questionable and can be improved by using stronger verbs and clearer phrasing. Ludwig AI indicates that this is not the most grammatically sound phrase, alternatives such as "appointed to", "assigned to", or "tasked with" are typically better choices to ensure clarity and grammatical correctness. Although it appears in diverse sources such as The New York Times and BBC, opting for more precise alternatives will enhance the quality and professionalism of your writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

assigned to

Emphasizes the assignment of a person to a task or position.

chosen for

Highlights the selection of someone for a role.

tasked with

Similar to 'assigned to', but more specific to tasks.

provided with

Emphasizes the act of providing something.

nominated to

Indicates the nomination of someone for a position.

equipped with

Focuses on features or items that something possesses.

selected with

Emphasis on the person that choose

outfitted with

Indicates that something is completely supplied with necessary items.

furnished with

Highlights the furnishings or decor of a space.

decorated with

Refers specifically to decoration or ornamentation.

FAQs

Is "appointed with" grammatically correct?

While the phrase "appointed with" is used, it's often considered less correct than alternatives like "appointed to" or simply using stronger verbs such as assigned or tasked.

When should I use "appointed to" instead of "appointed with"?

Use "appointed to" when referring to someone being officially designated for a role or position. "Appointed with" is typically not the correct choice.

What are some alternatives to "appointed with" for describing responsibilities?

Consider using phrases like "assigned to", "tasked with", or "responsible for" depending on the context.

How can I improve the clarity of my writing when describing someone's assignment?

Focus on using direct and active verbs. For example, instead of "He was appointed with the duty of managing the project", try "He was assigned to manage the project" or "He was tasked with managing the project".