was appointed with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was appointed with" is not correct in standard written English.
It is typically used incorrectly when trying to convey that someone was assigned a position or role. Example: "She was appointed with the responsibility of leading the project."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

34 human-written examples

WA police told Guardian Australia a victim liaison officer was appointed with all investigations conducted by its internal affairs unit.

The Guardian

Her house in suburban New Jersey was appointed with ornately carved period furniture.

The New York Times

The Soviet of People's Commissaries was appointed, with Lenin at their head.

Encyclopedia Britannica

A new editor was appointed with specific instructions to find out what was going on.

The New York Times

The room itself was appointed with custom-made furniture, including a striking accordion-wood built-in closet.

The New York Times - Travel

Also in that year he was appointed, with Jefferson, Edmund Pendleton, and George Mason, to revise the laws of Virginia.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

26 human-written examples

The upper floor is appointed with weirdly ornate Soviet chandeliers.

The Economist

Its nine rooms are appointed with a subtle nautical touch.

The New York Times - Travel

Under the new system, public prosecutors are to be appointed, with independent powers of investigation.

The Economist

The Constitution says judges are to be appointed with the Senate's "advice and consent".

The New York Times

The law states that two students be appointed, with no other specifications.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Avoid using "was appointed with". Instead, use "was appointed to" or "was assigned to" for grammatical correctness and clarity. For example, instead of "She was appointed with the responsibility", use "She was appointed to the responsibility" or "She was assigned the responsibility".

Common error

A common mistake is using the preposition "with" instead of "to" or omitting it entirely after "appointed". Remember that "appointed" typically requires a "to" when indicating the role or task assigned. Ensure you are specifying what the person was appointed to do.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was appointed with" functions as part of a passive construction, indicating the action of assigning someone a role or responsibility. However, this construction is grammatically incorrect. Examples in Ludwig show usage in news and encyclopedia contexts, but Ludwig AI points out the phrase's incorrectness.

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

News & Media

50%

Encyclopedias

29%

Wiki

12%

Less common in

Science

4%

Formal & Business

4%

Reference

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, while the phrase "was appointed with" appears in various sources, Ludwig AI identifies it as grammatically incorrect. The correct phrasing is typically ""was appointed to"" or ""was assigned to"". Although common, especially in news and encyclopedic content, its incorrectness means it should be avoided in formal writing. Always prioritize grammatical accuracy by using the proper prepositions to ensure clarity and professionalism. Using alternatives such as "was entrusted with" can also enhance your writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was appointed to

Changes the preposition to 'to', creating a grammatically correct phrase indicating assignment to a role or task.

was assigned to

Replaces 'appointed' with 'assigned', offering a similar meaning of being given a specific duty or position.

was entrusted with

Emphasizes the aspect of being given a responsibility or task with a degree of trust.

was designated to

Similar to 'assigned', but implies a more formal or official selection for a role.

was charged with

Highlights the responsibility or duty given to someone.

was selected for

Focuses on the act of choosing someone for a specific position or task.

was tasked with

Directly indicates that someone was given a task to perform.

was commissioned to

Suggests a more formal or official assignment, often for a specific project or purpose.

was given the responsibility of

More explicitly states that someone received the duty to handle something.

was named to

Highlights that someone was officially given a title or position.

FAQs

What is the correct way to use "appointed" in a sentence?

The correct usage is often "appointed to" or "assigned to". For example, "He "was appointed to" the committee" or "She "was assigned to" lead the project" are correct.

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

You can use alternatives like ""was appointed to"", ""was assigned to"", or "was entrusted with" depending on the context.

Is "was appointed with" grammatically correct?

No, "was appointed with" is not considered grammatically correct in standard written English. The correct phrasing is usually ""was appointed to"".

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

"Was appointed to" indicates being assigned a role or position, while "was appointed with" is generally considered an incorrect usage. It's best to stick with ""was appointed to"" for clarity and grammatical accuracy.