was limited to

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was limited to" is correct and usable in written English.
This phrase typically indicates that something has been restricted to a certain scope or range. For example: "The number of items she could bring on the plane was limited to two pieces of luggage."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

He was limited to 24 minutes.

The New York Times - Sports

Dining out was limited to special occasions.

The New York Times

I was limited to a box".

The New Yorker

Semiotics 211 was limited to ten students.

The New Yorker

The bill was limited to rate reductions.

The New York Times

Previously this was limited to 50% LTV.

The Guardian - Money

Heat was limited to scattered braziers.

The New York Times

But he was limited to the stage".

The New York Times

Of course, the topic then was limited to baseball.

The New York Times - Sports

I was limited to local growers and the seasons.

The New York Times - Food

The first bailout was limited to the 16 eurozone countries.

The Guardian - Business

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was limited to", ensure the context clearly defines what is imposing the limitation and what the specific restrictions are. This enhances clarity and avoids ambiguity.

Common error

Avoid using "was limited to" without clearly defining the scope of the limitation. For instance, instead of saying "Access was limited to authorized personnel", specify the areas or resources the personnel have access to.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was limited to" functions as a passive construction indicating a restriction or constraint. It describes a situation where something's scope or extent has been bounded by specific parameters. Ludwig's examples show diverse applications across varied contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

38%

News & Media

54%

Formal & Business

8%

Less common in

Wiki

1%

Reference

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was limited to" is a common and grammatically sound construction used to express restrictions or boundaries. As confirmed by Ludwig, it appears frequently in news, scientific, and formal business contexts. When employing this phrase, it's crucial to ensure that the nature and scope of the limitation are explicitly defined to maintain clarity. Alternatives such as "was restricted to" or "was confined to" can be used to add variety, depending on the specific nuance intended. "Was limited to" serves as a functional means of delineating the extent or scope of something under discussion.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was restricted to

Synonymous, focusing on the act of imposing a limit.

was confined to

Implies a physical or metaphorical enclosure or restriction.

was constrained to

Highlights the presence of external forces imposing the limit.

was reduced to

Suggests a decrease to a certain amount or state.

was narrowed to

Indicates a reduction in scope or focus.

was bounded by

Emphasizes the existence of a boundary or limit.

did not exceed

Focuses on the upper limit, implying a maximum value.

was capped at

Specifies a maximum limit, often in numerical terms.

was subject to

Implies being under the influence of certain rules or restrictions.

only included

Highlights the exclusivity of the included items or aspects.

FAQs

How can I use "was limited to" in a sentence?

You can use "was limited to" to indicate a restriction or boundary. For example, "The discussion "was limited to" the budget.".

What phrases are similar to "was limited to"?

Similar phrases include "was restricted to", "was confined to", or "was constrained to", all indicating a form of limitation or restriction.

Is it correct to say "was limit to" instead of "was limited to"?

No, "was limit to" is grammatically incorrect. The correct form is ""was limited to"", using the past participle of the verb "limit".

What is the difference between "was limited to" and "included only"?

"Was limited to" implies a restriction, while "included only" simply states what was included without necessarily implying a restriction. The first suggests exclusion, while the second specifies inclusion.