charge with

USAGE SUMMARY

"charge with" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when you are accusing someone of a crime, for example, "The suspect was charged with murder."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Encyclopedias

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

To charge with war crimes?

The New Yorker

No charge with admission.

The New York Times

No charge with museum admission.

The New York Times

That's why news organizations watched that charge with particular foreboding.

The New York Times

Raine embraces the second charge with cheerful good humour.

Independent

O'Neill must decide whom to charge with containing that pair.

The Guardian - Sport

JPMorgan has exercised this charge with a vengeance.

The New York Times

Again, he backs up his charge with impressive research.

The New York Times - Books

Now a new powerbroker will take charge with no Daley in the offing.

The Economist

Mickelson had been on a sustained, daylong charge, with four birdies and only one bogey.

The New York Times - Sports

But once seated, he sounded like a man in charge, with more to accomplish.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Avoid using "charge with" in contexts where 'responsible for' or 'tasked with' are more appropriate. "Charge with" often implies blame or accusation.

Common error

Avoid using "charge with" when simply assigning a task or responsibility without any implication of wrongdoing. For instance, instead of saying 'He was charged with organizing the event', use 'He was tasked with organizing the event' to avoid any unintended suggestion of blame or misconduct.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "charge with" functions primarily as a verb phrase, often used in the passive voice to indicate that someone has been formally accused of a crime or assigned a specific responsibility. As Ludwig AI confirms, this usage is correct and common.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

42%

Science

31%

Wiki

10%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

5%

Formal & Business

5%

Reference

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "charge with" is a commonly used phrase that primarily indicates the act of accusing someone of a crime or assigning a specific responsibility. As Ludwig AI clearly states, the phrase is correct and usable in written English. Predominantly found in News & Media and Science, it carries a neutral to formal register. While the phrase is widely accepted, it is crucial to use it accurately, especially in legal contexts, to avoid misrepresentation. Alternatives such as "task with" or "assign to" may be more appropriate when simply assigning a duty without any implication of wrongdoing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

accuse of

Focuses specifically on the act of accusing someone of wrongdoing.

indict for

Specifically refers to the legal process of formally accusing someone of a crime.

hold accountable for

Highlights the expectation that someone will be responsible for their actions or duties.

entrust with

Emphasizes the act of giving someone a responsibility or duty.

blame for

Places responsibility for a negative outcome or action on someone.

assign to

Focuses on the delegation of a task or responsibility.

task with

Similar to 'entrust with' but can imply a more specific or defined assignment.

burden with

Highlights the imposition of a task or responsibility that may be difficult.

impute to

Suggests attributing something, often a fault or crime, to someone.

saddle with

Implies that someone is being given an unwelcome or difficult responsibility.

FAQs

How do you use "charge with" in a sentence?

You can use "charge with" to indicate that someone has been formally accused of a crime, as in "The suspect was "charged with" theft". It implies a legal accusation.

What is the difference between "charge with" and "task with"?

"Charge with" typically implies an accusation of wrongdoing or a crime, while "task with" simply means assigning a responsibility or duty without any implication of blame.

Can "charge with" be used in non-legal contexts?

While "charge with" is primarily used in legal contexts, it can occasionally be used more broadly to indicate assigning a significant responsibility. However, it's important to be mindful of the potential for misinterpretation, as it often carries a connotation of blame or accusation.

What are some alternatives to "charge with" when assigning a duty?

If you want to avoid the accusatory implication of "charge with" when assigning a duty, consider using alternatives such as "assign to", "entrust with", or "task with", which are more neutral in tone.