was earmarked for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was earmarked for" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used to indicate that something has been designated or set aside for a specific purpose or recipient. Example: "The funds were earmarked for the new community center project."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

Half the money was earmarked for Medicaid.

The New York Times

But that place was earmarked for me.

The Guardian

A sum equivalent to $730m was earmarked for defence.

The Economist

PRESTON bus station was earmarked for demolition in 1999.

The Economist

"That section of Pocantico Hills was earmarked for open space".

The New York Times

This lot, too, he said, was earmarked for paved parking.

The New York Times

He said some of money was earmarked for spill victims.

The New York Times

Much of that aid was earmarked for judicial reform.

The New York Times

Avilés was earmarked for an industrial future by Franco's government.

The Guardian - Travel

The train, deemed dirty and smoky, was earmarked for extinction.

The Guardian

Not for the first time, Balotelli was earmarked for some testing treatment by defenders.

The New York Times - Sports

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was earmarked for", ensure that the purpose or recipient is clearly stated to avoid ambiguity. For instance, "The funding was earmarked for cancer research" is more effective than "The funding was earmarked".

Common error

Avoid using "was earmarked for" in overly passive sentences that obscure the actor or decision-maker. Rephrasing to an active voice can improve clarity and impact. For example, instead of "The project was earmarked for funding by the committee", consider "The committee earmarked the project for funding".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was earmarked for" functions as a passive construction, indicating that a subject received a specific designation or allocation by an external actor. Ludwig AI confirms this through numerous examples where funds, resources, or items are assigned a specific purpose.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

68%

Science

15%

Formal & Business

7%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

1%

Wiki

4%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was earmarked for" is a common and grammatically correct passive construction used to denote that something has been specifically designated or allocated for a particular purpose. Ludwig AI's analysis of numerous examples from reputable sources, such as The New York Times and The Guardian, confirms its widespread use across various contexts, especially in News & Media. While the phrase is generally neutral in tone, it's important to ensure clarity by explicitly stating the intended purpose or recipient. Using alternatives such as "was designated for" or "was allocated to" can add nuance or emphasis depending on the context.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was designated for

Emphasizes formal assignment or official selection.

was allocated to

Focuses on the distribution of resources to a specific recipient.

was set aside for

Highlights the act of reserving something for a particular use.

was reserved for

Similar to 'set aside', but can imply a more exclusive purpose.

was intended for

Focuses on the original plan or purpose behind the designation.

was budgeted for

Specifically relates to financial allocation within a budget.

was assigned to

Highlights the act of giving a task or resource to someone or something.

was slated for

Implies a scheduled or planned designation for the future.

was dedicated to

Emphasizes a strong commitment to a particular purpose or recipient.

was put towards

Indicates that something was used as a contribution to a specific goal or cause.

FAQs

How can I use "was earmarked for" in a sentence?

The phrase "was earmarked for" indicates that something has been specifically designated for a particular purpose. For example, "A portion of the budget "was earmarked for" infrastructure improvements".

What are some alternatives to "was earmarked for"?

You can use alternatives like "was designated for", "was allocated to", or "was set aside for" depending on the context.

Is it better to use "was earmarked for" or "is earmarked for"?

Use "was earmarked for" when referring to a past decision or allocation. Use "is earmarked for" when referring to a current or ongoing designation. For example, "The funds were earmarked last year, but the project is earmarked for completion this quarter".

What's the difference between "was earmarked for" and "was intended for"?

"Was earmarked for" suggests a formal or official designation, often involving resources or funds. "Was intended for" implies a purpose or plan, but not necessarily a formal allocation. The project "was intended for" research purposes, but the funds "was earmarked for" development.