rejected with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "rejected with" is not correct in standard written English as it lacks clarity and context.
It may be used in specific contexts where you want to indicate the manner or reason for a rejection, but it typically requires additional information to be meaningful. Example: "The proposal was rejected with a detailed explanation of its shortcomings."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Now, they may be rejected with me, but it's going to be a quick rejection.

The Washington Post

Now, they may be rejected with me but it's going to be a quick rejection.

The New York Times

It was rejected, with 13 Democrats voting against the measure.

The Washington Post

So for the assumption of independence can be rejected with 99% confidence.

Stanford University

Already, thousands of applicants, including Ms. Neumann, say that they have been rejected, with little explanation.

The New York Times

In all investigated 45 different cases of coastal landscapes the 'null hypothesis' was rejected with p < 0.00001.

Ocean & Coastal Management

That was rejected, with subsequent efforts to re-enter negotiations having come to nothing.

The Guardian - Sport

Those were rejected, with Cortese departing with Southampton comfortably placed in ninth.

The Guardian - Sport

Instead it was decisively rejected, with over three-quarters voting against.

The Guardian

That was rejected, with the government putting forward a public interest immunity argument.

The Guardian

He rejected – with characteristic firmness, clarity and authority – the government's approach to the judiciary.

The Guardian

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Avoid using "rejected with" in formal writing. Opt for more precise and grammatically sound alternatives such as "rejected and" or "rejected, adding that" to clearly convey the reason or manner of rejection.

Common error

Don't use "rejected with" to simply mean "rejected". This construction often sounds awkward. Instead, specify what accompanied the rejection, for instance, "rejected and explained" or "rejected with a detailed critique".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "rejected with" functions as a verb phrase, indicating an action (rejection) and a preposition, suggesting a manner, means, or accompaniment. Ludwig's examples indicate it requires further context to be grammatically sound and clear.

Expression frequency: Rare

Frequent in

News & Media

50%

Science

50%

Formal & Business

0%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "rejected with" is grammatically questionable and rarely used in standard English writing. According to Ludwig, it often lacks clarity and requires additional context to be meaningful. Better alternatives include phrases like "rejected and explained" or using more specific verbs such as "dismissed with" or "declined with". While the source authority is generally high, the overall usage consistency is low, suggesting writers should exercise caution and opt for clearer, more precise language.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

dismissed with

Implies a quick and often peremptory rejection, sometimes suggesting a lack of serious consideration.

turned down with

A more casual way of saying rejected, often implying a simple refusal without extensive explanation.

declined with

Suggests a polite or formal refusal, often used in business or professional contexts.

refused with

Indicates a direct and often assertive rejection, sometimes implying resistance or opposition.

denied with

Indicates a formal refusal or rebuttal, often used when addressing accusations or requests.

rebuffed with

Conveys a blunt or discouraging rejection, often used in social or romantic contexts.

spurned with

Suggests a disdainful or contemptuous rejection, often implying a sense of scorn or disdain.

overruled with

Indicates a rejection by someone in authority, often in a legal or formal setting.

vetoed with

Refers to a rejection by someone with the power to block a decision, typically in a political or organizational context.

disagreed with

Suggests a difference of opinion leading to a rejection of an idea or proposal.

FAQs

Is "rejected with" grammatically correct?

While not strictly incorrect, "rejected with" is often awkward and less precise than alternatives. It's better to use constructions like "rejected and explained" or "rejected, adding that" for clarity.

What are some alternatives to "rejected with"?

Consider alternatives such as "dismissed with", "declined with", or phrases like "rejected and explained" or "rejected, citing reasons such as".

How can I use "rejected with" correctly in a sentence?

To use it effectively, ensure it's followed by specific details about the manner or reason for rejection. For example: "The proposal was rejected with a detailed explanation of its shortcomings."

What's the difference between "rejected with" and simply "rejected"?

"Rejected" is a direct statement of refusal. "Rejected with" implies additional context or information accompanied the rejection, but it's often more effective to state that context directly.