object with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "object with" is not correct in standard written English and does not convey a clear meaning.
It is not typically used in any context, as it lacks clarity and proper grammatical structure. Example: "I need to object with the decision made by the committee." (This should be rephrased for clarity.)

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

Science

News & Media

Academia

Wiki

Encyclopedias

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Constructs an DataSource object with name name.

Stanford University

How do you invest a physical object with emotional resonance?

The New York Times

He was a specific object, with spatiotemporal location.

Britannica

He describes Kocur's hand as "a blunt object with fingernails".

The New Yorker

It's a strange object, with a stranger genesis.

The New Yorker

This method removes the object with the given name.

University of California, Berkeley

This method returns the object with the given name.

University of California, Berkeley

Return pointer to datamember object with name "datamember".

Stanford University

The cyclic object is a 2D object with holes.

Computers & Graphics

"In order to demonstrate that we needed a symbolic object, with its own significance.

The Guardian

It is the association of a physical object with something previously encountered or experienced.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When describing an object's attributes or features, use clearer alternatives like "object that has" or "object characterized by" to ensure grammatical correctness.

Common error

Avoid using "object with" when you intend to describe an object's properties or features. Instead, opt for phrases like "object that possesses" or "object containing" to accurately convey the intended meaning.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "object with" functions as a descriptive element, attempting to link an object to a characteristic or action. As noted by Ludwig AI, it is grammatically incorrect, yet it appears across diverse sources.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

23%

News & Media

22%

Wiki

10%

Less common in

Academia

12%

Encyclopedias

5%

Formal & Business

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

While the phrase "object with" appears frequently across various sources, including science, news, and general content, Ludwig AI flags it as grammatically incorrect. This phrase aims to describe an object's attributes or interactions, but it lacks grammatical precision. For clarity and correctness, it's best to substitute it with alternatives like "object that has", "object possessing", or "object characterized by". In formal and academic writing, avoiding "object with" is especially important to maintain grammatical integrity. Always aim for precise language that accurately conveys your intended meaning.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

object that has

Emphasizes the object's attributes or characteristics.

object possessing

Highlights the object's inherent qualities.

object characterized by

Focuses on the distinctive features of the object.

interact with object

Specifies an interaction or action involving the object.

object connected to

Indicates a physical or conceptual link between the object and another entity.

item including

Suggests the object is inclusive or contains certain parts or aspects.

structure containing

Highlights the compositional nature of an object.

component featuring

Focuses on unique aspects or properties.

article incorporating

Indicates that the object is comprised or contains something else.

element displaying

Highlights the visible characteristics or behaviors of an object.

FAQs

What is a grammatically correct substitute for "object with"?

Instead of "object with", use phrases like "object that has", "object characterized by", or "object possessing" to accurately describe an object's attributes.

How can I describe an object's features without using "object with"?

You can rephrase sentences using alternatives such as "the object includes", "the object features", or "the object contains" to avoid the grammatically questionable "object with".

Is "object with" considered correct in formal writing?

No, "object with" is not considered grammatically correct in formal writing. It's best to use more precise and standard constructions like "object that has" or "object featuring".

When is it appropriate to use "object with"?

While commonly found, "object with" is not grammatically sound. It is recommended to use expressions like "interact with object", depending on the meaning you wish to express. Always aim for grammatical precision.