"merged with" vs "was merged with"

Question

"merged with" vs "was merged with"

Both "merged with" and "was merged with" are correct, but they are used in different contexts. "Merged with" is more commonly used in active voice constructions, where the subject is performing the action of merging. On the other hand, "was merged with" is used in passive voice constructions, where the subject is receiving the action of merging.

Last Updated: March 30, 2024

This phrase is used when the subject is actively participating in the action of merging with another entity.

Examples:

The two companies merged with each other to form a new corporation.
The river merged with the lake at the delta.

Alternatives:

joined with
combined with
united with
fused with
amalgamated with

This phrase is used when the subject is the entity that is being merged with another entity, in a passive voice construction.

Examples:

The small company was merged with the larger corporation.
The two rivers were merged with the canal.

Alternatives:

was joined with
was combined with
was united with
was fused with
was amalgamated with

Answer 1

merged with

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English, especially in active voice constructions.

Answer 2

was merged with

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English, especially in passive voice constructions.

"merged with" vs "was merged with"

merged with

was merged with

Related Comparisons