was appointed to

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was appointed to" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it whenever you are indicating that someone was chosen or assigned to a certain responsibility, job, or position. Example: "John was appointed to the board of directors at the company's annual meeting."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Wiki

Encyclopedias

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Heller was appointed to replace Ensign.

The New York Times

I was appointed to it.

The New York Times

Andrew Johnson was appointed to the Senate.

The New York Times

She was appointed to the seat.

The New York Times

He was appointed to the state's Supreme Court in 2003.

Princeton University

He was appointed to the Irish Senate in May 2002.

Harvard University

Later he was appointed to the Presidential Council.

Yale University

She was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010.

Harvard University

Brennan was appointed to the court in 1956.

The New Yorker

He was appointed to this post by Pres.

The New Yorker

In January, Gordon Strachan was appointed to the post.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was appointed to", ensure the context clearly indicates the authority or entity making the appointment. This adds clarity and credibility to the statement.

Common error

Avoid overusing the passive voice with "was appointed to" to the point where the sentence becomes vague. Whenever possible, specify who did the appointing to improve clarity and engagement. For example, instead of saying "He was appointed to the committee", use "The president appointed him to the committee".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was appointed to" functions as a passive verb phrase indicating that someone received an official assignment or designation. Ludwig provides examples showing its use in various contexts, demonstrating its grammatical correctness.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

44%

Academia

20%

Wiki

18%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

6%

Formal & Business

4%

Science

4%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was appointed to" is a grammatically sound and frequently used expression to denote the official assignment of an individual to a role or position. As confirmed by Ludwig, this phrase is versatile and applicable across various contexts, including news, academic, and professional settings. While the phrase itself is straightforward, writers should pay attention to the clarity of the sentence, especially by explicitly stating who made the appointment. Consider alternatives like "was designated to" or "was selected for" to fine-tune the nuance and emphasis. Ultimately, "was appointed to" remains a reliable and effective choice for conveying official assignments.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was designated to

Emphasis on formal selection for a task or role.

was assigned to

Focuses on the act of assigning a duty or responsibility.

was selected for

Highlights the element of choice in assigning a role.

was chosen to

Similar to 'selected,' but can imply a broader range of selection criteria.

was named to

Emphasizes the public announcement of the appointment.

was tasked with

Highlights the duty or task given to someone.

was delegated to

Implies that authority or responsibility was passed down.

was nominated for

Focuses on being put forward as a candidate for a position.

was commissioned to

Implies a formal authorization to carry out a specific task.

was constituted as

Suggests a formal establishment into a role or position.

FAQs

How to use "was appointed to" in a sentence?

Use "was appointed to" to indicate that someone has been officially assigned a role or position. For example, "She was appointed to the board of directors".

What can I say instead of "was appointed to"?

You can use alternatives like "was designated to", "was selected for", or "was chosen to" depending on the context.

Is it better to say "was appointed to" or "was named to"?

Both "was appointed to" and "was named to" are correct, but "was named to" often implies a public announcement of the appointment, while "was appointed to" simply indicates the assignment of a role.

What's the difference between "was appointed to" and "was assigned to"?

"Was appointed to" usually refers to a more formal or official role, whereas "was assigned to" can refer to any task or duty. For example, you might be 'appointed' to a government position, but 'assigned' to a project at work.