was recognized to

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was recognized to" is not correct in standard written English.
It is typically used incorrectly; the correct form would be "was recognized as" or "was recognized for." Example: "She was recognized to be a leading expert in her field."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

Science

News & Media

Academia

Encyclopedias

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

The hydroxycyclohexadienyl radical of BPA was recognized to play central role in the degradation pathways.

Chemosphere

In a wide range of parameters this last factor was recognized to have almost no effect on buckling stresses.

International Journal of Solids and Structures

The world over, and in America particularly, Greek sculpture was recognized to be almost notorious for its purity.

The New Yorker

It was recognized to inhibit activity of kinases such as Bcr/Abl, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-kit.

European Journal of Pharmacology

Last month "the vice president walked out of the Summit of the Americas when Cuba's foreign minister was recognized to speak after him," according to the Associated Press.

The Washington Post

The cyanobacterium Synechococcus sp. R42DM, isolated from an industrially polluted site Vatva, Gujarat, India was recognized to produce phycocyanin (PC) as major phycobiliprotein.

Bioresource Technology

The growth direction was recognized to be decisive for changing the interface curvature from concave to convex and enabling efficient grain selection.

Journal of Crystal Growth

At age 22, however, he was recognized to be suffering from a nervous disease that was taken to be epilepsy, although the essential symptoms were absent.

Encyclopedia Britannica

After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky). and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala)., the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, submitted two amendments to the bill, Murphy was recognized to speak and launched into his filibuster.

The Washington Post

Modern convention of architectural drawing before the coming of the digital era started during the Renaissance when drawing was recognized to be the tool through which an idea of architecture is transformed into a feasible construction.

Columbia University

Semaphorin3A was recognized to be a marker for T-regulatory cells (Tregs), and as such is a useful tool for assessing the status of these cells in preventing immune mediated diseases.

Clinical Immunology

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Prefer using "was recognized as" or "was recognized for" instead of "was recognized to" for better grammatical accuracy.

Common error

Avoid using "to" after "recognized" when the intended meaning is "acknowledged as" or "identified as". For example, instead of saying, "The patient was recognized to have high serum CEA level", use "The patient was recognized as having high serum CEA level".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was recognized to" functions as a passive construction, indicating that someone or something was identified or acknowledged in a particular way. As Ludwig AI points out, it is typically used incorrectly and more common option would be using "was recognized as" or "was recognized for".

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

68%

News & Media

12%

Academia

7%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

5%

Wiki

3%

Formal & Business

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "was recognized to" is a passive construction frequently used across various domains such as science, news, academia, encyclopedias, and wikis. However, according to Ludwig AI, it is often grammatically questionable and commonly misused; the recommendations is to using "was recognized as" or "was recognized for" instead. This analysis reveals that while the phrase is widespread, awareness of more grammatically accurate alternatives can improve writing quality. Preferring options like "was acknowledged as", "was identified as", or "was known to be" can enhance clarity and precision.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was acknowledged as

Focuses on the act of acknowledging rather than just recognizing.

was identified as

Emphasizes the act of identification or classification.

was regarded as

Focuses on how something is viewed or esteemed.

was known to be

Highlights the state of being known or regarded in a certain way.

was considered to be

Suggests an element of judgment or opinion.

was deemed to be

Implies a formal assessment or decision.

was understood to be

Emphasizes comprehension or awareness.

was established as

Highlights the act of setting up, creating, or demonstrating something in a clear and convincing way.

was discovered to be

Highlights that something was unknown before.

came to be known as

Indicates a gradual process of becoming known.

FAQs

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

The verb "recognize" is typically followed by "as" or "for". For example, you can say "She was "recognized as" a leading expert" or "He was "recognized for" his contributions".

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

You can use alternatives like "was acknowledged as", "was identified as", or "was known to be" depending on the context.

Is "was recognized to be" grammatically correct?

While commonly used, "was recognized to be" is often considered grammatically incorrect. It's better to use "was recognized as" or "was recognized for".

What's the difference between "was recognized to be" and "was recognized as"?

"Was recognized as" is generally considered the more grammatically sound option. It directly links the subject with its recognized attribute or role. "Was recognized to be" is often considered wordy and less precise. The sentence "The issue was recognized to be a deal breaker" can be improved to "The issue "was recognized as a deal breaker"".