TextRanch

The best way to perfect your writing.

Discover why 1,062,726 users count on TextRanch to get their English corrected!

1. Input your text below.
2. Get it corrected in a few minutes by our editors.
3. Improve your English!

One of our experts will correct your English.

Our experts

I have submitted the draft with vs I have submitted the draft to

Both phrases are correct, but they are used in different contexts. 'I have submitted the draft with' is typically followed by the object or tool used to submit the draft, while 'I have submitted the draft to' is followed by the recipient or destination of the draft. They are not directly comparable as they serve different purposes.

Last updated: March 24, 2024 • 931 views

I have submitted the draft with

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English when specifying the object or tool used to submit the draft.

This phrase is used to indicate the object or tool that was used to submit the draft. For example, 'I have submitted the draft with the new editing software.'

Examples:

  • I have submitted the draft with the online submission form.
  • I have submitted the draft with the help of my colleague.
  • I have submitted the draft with the required changes.
  • I have submitted the draft with the updated information.
  • I have submitted the draft with the necessary attachments.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 22 November 2002.
  • The Commission shall, by 1 January 2014, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report specifying whether the ESA have submitted the draft technical standards foreseen in this Directive, where such submission is mandatory or optional, with any appropriate proposals.
  • At the end of May it submitted the draft to the Council and Parliament for advice.
  • At the time of writing, six political groups have submitted draft resolutions on the subject.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 12 December 2005 (fluopicolide) and on 30 November 2005 (pinoxaden).
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the Draft Assessment Report for the substance on 26 January 2001 on the basis of all the studies available at that time.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 3 August 2002.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 19 September 2005.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 15 September 2009 (ametoctradin) and on 27 August 2009 (disodium phosphonate), respectively.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 16 December 2009.
  • Now the Council has submitted a draft with a figure EUR 10.3 billion below the ceiling.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 10 May 2004 (benthiavalicarb), 9 June 2006 (proquinazid), 9 November 2005 (silver thiosulphate), respectively.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 30 January 2006 (cyflufenamid), 18 February 2005 (FEN 560), 24 May 2005 (flonicamid), respectively.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 12 October 2001 (etoxazole) and 16 October 2000 (carvone).
  • An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation.
  • An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation.
  • Since an implementing act was deemed to be necessary, the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation.
  • An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 6 March 2008 (emamectin) and on 10 December 2009 (maltodextrin), respectively.
  • The draft submitted by the Commission is not due to be adopted before the middle of 2006.

I have submitted the draft to

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English when indicating the recipient or destination of the draft.

This phrase is used to specify the recipient or destination of the draft. For example, 'I have submitted the draft to the professor.'

Examples:

  • I have submitted the draft to the editor for review.
  • I have submitted the draft to the committee for approval.
  • I have submitted the draft to the client for feedback.
  • I have submitted the draft to the publishing house for consideration.
  • I have submitted the draft to the appropriate department.
  • At the end of May it submitted the draft to the Council and Parliament for advice.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 22 November 2002.
  • The Commission shall, by 1 January 2014, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report specifying whether the ESA have submitted the draft technical standards foreseen in this Directive, where such submission is mandatory or optional, with any appropriate proposals.
  • At the time of writing, six political groups have submitted draft resolutions on the subject.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 12 December 2005 (fluopicolide) and on 30 November 2005 (pinoxaden).
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the Draft Assessment Report for the substance on 26 January 2001 on the basis of all the studies available at that time.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 3 August 2002.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 19 September 2005.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 15 September 2009 (ametoctradin) and on 27 August 2009 (disodium phosphonate), respectively.
  • The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 16 December 2009.
  • If the Commission is happy to act as the clerk that draws up the Council's legislation, it could at least have submitted a draft to us that complied better with the legal requirements that we have the right to expect from a legislative text.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 10 May 2004 (benthiavalicarb), 9 June 2006 (proquinazid), 9 November 2005 (silver thiosulphate), respectively.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 30 January 2006 (cyflufenamid), 18 February 2005 (FEN 560), 24 May 2005 (flonicamid), respectively.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 12 October 2001 (etoxazole) and 16 October 2000 (carvone).
  • An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation.
  • An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation.
  • Since an implementing act was deemed to be necessary, the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation.
  • An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation.
  • The rapporteur Member States submitted the draft assessment reports to the Commission on 6 March 2008 (emamectin) and on 10 December 2009 (maltodextrin), respectively.
  • The draft submitted by the Commission is not due to be adopted before the middle of 2006.

Related Comparisons

have you submitted the report? vs did you submitted the report? I have discussed with vs I have discussed to I have discussed with vs I am discussed with I have discussed with vs I had discussed about his travel I have discussed with vs I had discussed about his trave I had discussed with vs I have discussed with

What Our Customers Are Saying

Our customers love us! We have an average rating of 4.79 stars based on 283,125 votes.
Also check out our 2,100+ reviews on TrustPilot (4.9TextRanch on TrustPilot).

Why choose TextRanch?

Lowest prices
Up to 50% lower than other online editing sites.

Fastest Times
Our team of editors is working for you 24/7.

Qualified Editors
Native English experts for UK or US English.

Top Customer Service
We are here to help. Satisfaction guaranteed!