was true for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was true for" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate that something applied or was valid for a particular subject or situation in the past. Example: "This theory was true for many scientists during the early 20th century."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

That was true for decades.

The New York Times - Food

The same was true for the Democrats.

The New Yorker

The same was true for Steinman.

The New York Times - Magazine

The same was true for many homeowners.

The New York Times

The same was true for Mr. Aronofsky.

The New York Times

The same was true for Medicaid.

The New Yorker

The opposite was true for Poyet.

Independent

The same was true for Ireland.

The New York Times - Magazine

That was true for everyone".

The New York Times

This was true for us.

The New York Times - Magazine

The same thing was true for Ray Odierno.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "was true for" to clearly indicate that a specific condition, fact, or situation applied to a particular subject or time. This helps avoid ambiguity and ensures your statement is precise.

Common error

Avoid using "was true for" when referring to universal truths or widely accepted facts that apply to everyone or everything. Instead, reserve it for specific instances where something was only applicable to certain entities or contexts.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was true for" functions as a connector linking a subject to a condition or state that held validity or relevance specifically for that subject. Ludwig AI confirms its correct and usable nature, as evident in the diverse examples of its usage.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

47%

Science

45%

Formal & Business

4%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "was true for" is a versatile phrase used to indicate that a particular condition, fact, or situation applied specifically to a subject in the past. Ludwig confirms its grammatical correctness and common usage across diverse contexts, including news, science, and general writing. While versatile, be mindful of avoiding overgeneralization and consider alternatives like "applied to" or "held true for" depending on the specific context. The phrase exhibits a neutral register, making it suitable for various writing styles and purposes.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

held true for

Focuses on the continued validity or applicability of something over a period.

applied to

Indicates that something was relevant or pertinent to a specific subject or situation.

was the case for

Replaces 'true' with 'the case', emphasizing the factual nature of the situation.

remained accurate for

Emphasizes the accuracy and continued validity of information or a statement.

was valid for

Highlights the legitimacy or soundness of something in a specific context.

was applicable to

Focuses on the relevance and suitability of something in a particular situation.

was correct for

Indicates that something was factually right or accurate in a given context.

held good for

Similar to 'held true', but with a slightly less formal tone.

was the reality for

Emphasizes the actual or real nature of a situation for someone or something.

proved to be the case for

Highlights that a certain outcome or situation turned out to be true or factual.

FAQs

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

Use "was true for" to specify that a statement, condition, or situation applied to a particular subject or period. For example, "That "was true for Laura Palmby"" indicates that something was specifically valid for her.

What's a good alternative to "was true for"?

Alternatives include "applied to", "was the case for", or "held true for". The best choice depends on the specific context and the nuance you want to convey.

Is it correct to say "is true for" instead of "was true for"?

The choice between "is true for" and "was true for" depends on the time frame. "Is true for" indicates a present or ongoing state, while "was true for" indicates a past state. For example, "This "is true for many people" today, but it wasn't always the case."

What's the difference between "was true for" and "the same was true for"?

"Was true for" introduces an initial statement or situation. "The same was true for" indicates that the same condition applied to another subject or situation. For example, "The rent increased. The "same was true for Medicaid"" shows a parallel situation.