interrupted with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "interrupted with" is not correct in standard English usage.
The correct expression would typically be "interrupted by." Example: "The meeting was interrupted by a loud noise from outside."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

58 human-written examples

I interrupted with angry questions.

The New Yorker

I interrupted with offended, aggrieved crying.

The New York Times

A friend interrupted with a skeptical frown.

The New York Times

Arthur interrupted with a call for broccoli.

The New Yorker

On multiple occasions, Kaine was interrupted with chants of "USA!

The Guardian

So I interrupted with a direct question to Brooke.

The New York Times - Magazine

Mr. Reid, a former boxer, interrupted with a jab.

The New York Times

Scenes unfold in repetitive loops and are interrupted with starts and stops.

The New York Times - Arts

When a product demonstrator gave me his pitch, they interrupted with design footnotes.

The New Yorker

The Washington meeting was not interrupted with the news from Fort Hood, according to Sullivan.

The Guardian

My journey was interrupted with a trip to his house where I drank from his well.

The Guardian - Travel

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Prefer using "interrupted by" instead of "interrupted with" for grammatical correctness and clarity.

Common error

Avoid using "with" after "interrupted"; use "by" to correctly indicate what caused the interruption. "The speaker was interrupted by a question from the audience" is correct, not "The speaker was interrupted with a question from the audience".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "interrupted with" functions as a verb phrase where "interrupted" is the past participle of the verb "interrupt", and "with" is a preposition. Ludwig AI indicates the use of this phrase is grammatically incorrect.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

56%

Science

38%

Formal & Business

3%

Less common in

Wiki

2%

Reference

1%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, while the phrase "interrupted with" appears frequently across diverse sources, ranging from news media to scientific literature, it's generally considered grammatically questionable. Ludwig AI signals that it is not correct in standard English usage. The preferred alternative is "interrupted by", which accurately conveys the intended meaning. Therefore, it is recommended to use "interrupted by" in formal and professional writing to ensure clarity and grammatical correctness. Although it may be encountered, especially in informal contexts, adhering to "interrupted by" enhances the precision and credibility of your writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

interrupted by

Replaces 'with' with 'by', the standard preposition for indicating the cause of the interruption.

disrupted by

Indicates a disturbance that throws something off course.

broken up by

Emphasizes a forceful stop or division caused by something external.

punctuated by

Highlights the presence of distinct events or elements that break the flow.

interspersed with

Implies a recurring pattern of introduction rather than a sudden break.

disturbed by

Focuses on the feeling of being unsettled or bothered during the interruption.

halted by

Suggests a complete and often temporary stop to an action.

suspended by

Conveys a temporary cessation, often with the expectation of resumption.

intruded upon by

Adds a sense of unwanted or unwelcome interruption.

broken with

Signifies a departure from a pattern or routine due to the interruption.

FAQs

How can I correctly use "interrupted" in a sentence?

The correct preposition to use after "interrupted" is "by". For example, "The meeting was "interrupted by" a fire alarm."

What is a grammatically sound alternative to "interrupted with"?

A grammatically correct alternative is to use ""interrupted by"". This is the standard way to indicate that something was stopped or broken by an external factor.

Is there a difference in meaning between "interrupted by" and "interrupted with"?

While "interrupted with" is occasionally used, it's generally considered grammatically incorrect. "Interrupted by" is the preferred and more accurate way to express that something was stopped or broken.

When is it acceptable to use "interrupted with"?

While occasionally found in informal contexts, "interrupted with" is generally discouraged in formal writing. It's better to opt for ""interrupted by"" to maintain grammatical accuracy.