had filled with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "had filled with" is not correct in standard written English.
It is typically used in contexts where something has been filled with a substance or quality in the past, but it requires a subject and an object to be complete. Example: "The container had filled with water after the rain."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

58 human-written examples

The sink had filled with dishes.

The New Yorker

His eyes had filled with tears.

The New Yorker

When the boat righted itself, the cockpit had filled with a foot of water.

The New York Times - Travel

Firefighters met several tenants in a stairwell who said an elevator had filled with smoke.

The New York Times

An hour later, the stands had filled with fifteen thousand people, and the concert began.

The New Yorker

It stands by the greenhouse and had filled with the rain of early summer.

The Guardian

We Will Die for Dudus!" By the weekend, Tivoli had filled with armed men.

The New Yorker

He said that Heinemann's lungs had filled with fluid and bacteria.

The New York Times - Sports

I arrived to a hotel room which he had filled with vases of carnations and antirrhinums.

The Guardian - Music

I grabbed an empty pack of Marlboros I had filled with cigarette butts and left on my parents' deck.

The New York Times

(The main piece of evidence Weiss adduced for a drought was that Tell Leilan had filled with dust).

The New Yorker

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Prefer using the passive voice construction "was filled with" or "had been filled with" for grammatical correctness.

Common error

Avoid using "had filled with" in formal writing; instead, opt for "was filled with" or "had been filled with" to maintain grammatical accuracy.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "had filled with" functions as part of a verb phrase, indicating a past perfect action. While commonly used, Ludwig AI points out that it is grammatically incorrect, often requiring completion with a passive construction or adjustment to a more standard form like "was filled with."

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

78%

Wiki

5%

Formal & Business

3%

Less common in

Science

3%

Encyclopedias

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, while the phrase "had filled with" is commonly found across various sources like The New York Times and The Guardian, Ludwig AI identifies it as grammatically incorrect. The phrase aims to describe a past action of filling, but it often requires adjustments to conform to standard English. For grammatically sound alternatives, consider using "was filled with" or "had been filled with". Therefore, it is best to avoid using "had filled with" in formal contexts and opt for more precise and grammatically correct alternatives.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was filled with

Replaces "had" with "was", changing the tense and voice to passive present.

became full of

Uses "became" to indicate a process of filling, with emphasis on the result.

got filled with

Employs "got" to denote a process of becoming full, often used informally.

brimmed with

Suggests an overflowing level of fullness, indicating abundance.

overflowed with

Emphasizes exceeding capacity, implying a surplus or excessive amount.

teemed with

Implies an abundance of living things or movement within the filled space.

was replete with

Uses "replete" to describe a state of being fully or abundantly filled.

bulged with

Indicates swelling or outward expansion due to being filled to capacity.

swelled with

Implies an increase in volume or size due to being filled.

burst with

Suggests a sudden and forceful expression or display of what it contains.

FAQs

How do I correctly use the phrase "had filled with" in a sentence?

While "had filled with" is commonly used, it's grammatically incorrect. Instead, use "was filled with" or "had been filled with" to maintain grammatical accuracy.

What's the difference between "had filled with" and "was filled with"?

"Had filled with" implies a completed action of filling, but is grammatically incomplete. "Was filled with" is grammatically correct, indicating a state of being full at a certain time.

What are some alternatives to "had filled with" that I can use in my writing?

You can use alternatives like "became full of", "brimmed with", or "overflowed with" depending on the context.

Is "had filled with" considered formal or informal language?

While frequently used, "had filled with" is grammatically incorrect and should be avoided in formal writing. Use "was filled with" or "had been filled with" for formal contexts.