Single word to replace “allowed to be missing”












9















I want to express my knowledge about the presence of absence of something. My knowledge is divided into three different cases:




  • I know that the thing doesn't exist.

  • I don't know whether the thing exists.

  • I know that the thing exists.


Sadly, neither of those is the negation of another one. However, I can define four cases, where each case is the negation of another case:




  1. Something is allowed to exist. (allowed)

  2. Something is allowed to be missing. (???)

  3. Something is guaranteed to exist. (guaranteed)

  4. Something is guaranteed to be missing. (prohibited)


I want to describe each of these cases by a single word, which is supposed to clearly distinguish it from the other three cases. As you can see, I already found three of the words. However, in the second case I am unable to find one.



Let me expand on what I mean by the negation. Consider the following table:



| phrase                   | single word | doesn't exist | don't know | exists |
|--------------------------|:-----------:|:-------------:|:----------:|:------:|
| allowed to exist | allowed | no | yes | yes |
| allowed to be missing | ??? | yes | yes | no |
| guaranteed to exist | guaranteed | no | no | yes |
| guaranteed to be missing | prohibited | yes | no | no |


Note, that the first and the fourth case are supposed to be negations of each other, just like the second and the third case. Thus, if I say that something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited). Also, if I say that something is not allowed to be missing (???), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed).



Thus, my question is: Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing"?



This question can be rephrased to: Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?





The context is theoretical computer science. Here are two example sentences, which are negations of each other:




  • The connection from x to y is allowed and the connection from y to z is guaranteed.

  • The connection from x to y is prohibited or the connection from y to z is allowed to be missing.


I think the most helpful wording is the one suggested in this answer, using terms from modal logic:




  • The connection from x to y is possible and the connection from y to z is necessary.

  • The connection from x to y is not possible or the connection from y to z is not necessary.


Thanks for all the answers =)










share|improve this question









New contributor




Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – tchrist
    Jan 19 at 1:00











  • Is there a German word you're looking to replace there? The table itself feels awkward working in an English frame of reference.

    – Alex H.
    2 days ago











  • What sort of somethings? An object or a condition?

    – user2617804
    yesterday











  • VTC: fails to provide a contextual sentence in which the word would be used. As it stands, it's asking for a concept. Try Philosophy.SE

    – Mazura
    yesterday











  • A fill-in-the-blank context can't just be a blank. "allowed to be missing” is just a blank. Where's the rest of the sentence?

    – Mazura
    yesterday


















9















I want to express my knowledge about the presence of absence of something. My knowledge is divided into three different cases:




  • I know that the thing doesn't exist.

  • I don't know whether the thing exists.

  • I know that the thing exists.


Sadly, neither of those is the negation of another one. However, I can define four cases, where each case is the negation of another case:




  1. Something is allowed to exist. (allowed)

  2. Something is allowed to be missing. (???)

  3. Something is guaranteed to exist. (guaranteed)

  4. Something is guaranteed to be missing. (prohibited)


I want to describe each of these cases by a single word, which is supposed to clearly distinguish it from the other three cases. As you can see, I already found three of the words. However, in the second case I am unable to find one.



Let me expand on what I mean by the negation. Consider the following table:



| phrase                   | single word | doesn't exist | don't know | exists |
|--------------------------|:-----------:|:-------------:|:----------:|:------:|
| allowed to exist | allowed | no | yes | yes |
| allowed to be missing | ??? | yes | yes | no |
| guaranteed to exist | guaranteed | no | no | yes |
| guaranteed to be missing | prohibited | yes | no | no |


Note, that the first and the fourth case are supposed to be negations of each other, just like the second and the third case. Thus, if I say that something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited). Also, if I say that something is not allowed to be missing (???), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed).



Thus, my question is: Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing"?



This question can be rephrased to: Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?





The context is theoretical computer science. Here are two example sentences, which are negations of each other:




  • The connection from x to y is allowed and the connection from y to z is guaranteed.

  • The connection from x to y is prohibited or the connection from y to z is allowed to be missing.


I think the most helpful wording is the one suggested in this answer, using terms from modal logic:




  • The connection from x to y is possible and the connection from y to z is necessary.

  • The connection from x to y is not possible or the connection from y to z is not necessary.


Thanks for all the answers =)










share|improve this question









New contributor




Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – tchrist
    Jan 19 at 1:00











  • Is there a German word you're looking to replace there? The table itself feels awkward working in an English frame of reference.

    – Alex H.
    2 days ago











  • What sort of somethings? An object or a condition?

    – user2617804
    yesterday











  • VTC: fails to provide a contextual sentence in which the word would be used. As it stands, it's asking for a concept. Try Philosophy.SE

    – Mazura
    yesterday











  • A fill-in-the-blank context can't just be a blank. "allowed to be missing” is just a blank. Where's the rest of the sentence?

    – Mazura
    yesterday
















9












9








9








I want to express my knowledge about the presence of absence of something. My knowledge is divided into three different cases:




  • I know that the thing doesn't exist.

  • I don't know whether the thing exists.

  • I know that the thing exists.


Sadly, neither of those is the negation of another one. However, I can define four cases, where each case is the negation of another case:




  1. Something is allowed to exist. (allowed)

  2. Something is allowed to be missing. (???)

  3. Something is guaranteed to exist. (guaranteed)

  4. Something is guaranteed to be missing. (prohibited)


I want to describe each of these cases by a single word, which is supposed to clearly distinguish it from the other three cases. As you can see, I already found three of the words. However, in the second case I am unable to find one.



Let me expand on what I mean by the negation. Consider the following table:



| phrase                   | single word | doesn't exist | don't know | exists |
|--------------------------|:-----------:|:-------------:|:----------:|:------:|
| allowed to exist | allowed | no | yes | yes |
| allowed to be missing | ??? | yes | yes | no |
| guaranteed to exist | guaranteed | no | no | yes |
| guaranteed to be missing | prohibited | yes | no | no |


Note, that the first and the fourth case are supposed to be negations of each other, just like the second and the third case. Thus, if I say that something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited). Also, if I say that something is not allowed to be missing (???), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed).



Thus, my question is: Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing"?



This question can be rephrased to: Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?





The context is theoretical computer science. Here are two example sentences, which are negations of each other:




  • The connection from x to y is allowed and the connection from y to z is guaranteed.

  • The connection from x to y is prohibited or the connection from y to z is allowed to be missing.


I think the most helpful wording is the one suggested in this answer, using terms from modal logic:




  • The connection from x to y is possible and the connection from y to z is necessary.

  • The connection from x to y is not possible or the connection from y to z is not necessary.


Thanks for all the answers =)










share|improve this question









New contributor




Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I want to express my knowledge about the presence of absence of something. My knowledge is divided into three different cases:




  • I know that the thing doesn't exist.

  • I don't know whether the thing exists.

  • I know that the thing exists.


Sadly, neither of those is the negation of another one. However, I can define four cases, where each case is the negation of another case:




  1. Something is allowed to exist. (allowed)

  2. Something is allowed to be missing. (???)

  3. Something is guaranteed to exist. (guaranteed)

  4. Something is guaranteed to be missing. (prohibited)


I want to describe each of these cases by a single word, which is supposed to clearly distinguish it from the other three cases. As you can see, I already found three of the words. However, in the second case I am unable to find one.



Let me expand on what I mean by the negation. Consider the following table:



| phrase                   | single word | doesn't exist | don't know | exists |
|--------------------------|:-----------:|:-------------:|:----------:|:------:|
| allowed to exist | allowed | no | yes | yes |
| allowed to be missing | ??? | yes | yes | no |
| guaranteed to exist | guaranteed | no | no | yes |
| guaranteed to be missing | prohibited | yes | no | no |


Note, that the first and the fourth case are supposed to be negations of each other, just like the second and the third case. Thus, if I say that something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited). Also, if I say that something is not allowed to be missing (???), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed).



Thus, my question is: Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing"?



This question can be rephrased to: Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?





The context is theoretical computer science. Here are two example sentences, which are negations of each other:




  • The connection from x to y is allowed and the connection from y to z is guaranteed.

  • The connection from x to y is prohibited or the connection from y to z is allowed to be missing.


I think the most helpful wording is the one suggested in this answer, using terms from modal logic:




  • The connection from x to y is possible and the connection from y to z is necessary.

  • The connection from x to y is not possible or the connection from y to z is not necessary.


Thanks for all the answers =)







single-word-requests terminology science logic






share|improve this question









New contributor




Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







Stefan Dollase













New contributor




Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Jan 17 at 15:06









Stefan DollaseStefan Dollase

16916




16916




New contributor




Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – tchrist
    Jan 19 at 1:00











  • Is there a German word you're looking to replace there? The table itself feels awkward working in an English frame of reference.

    – Alex H.
    2 days ago











  • What sort of somethings? An object or a condition?

    – user2617804
    yesterday











  • VTC: fails to provide a contextual sentence in which the word would be used. As it stands, it's asking for a concept. Try Philosophy.SE

    – Mazura
    yesterday











  • A fill-in-the-blank context can't just be a blank. "allowed to be missing” is just a blank. Where's the rest of the sentence?

    – Mazura
    yesterday





















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – tchrist
    Jan 19 at 1:00











  • Is there a German word you're looking to replace there? The table itself feels awkward working in an English frame of reference.

    – Alex H.
    2 days ago











  • What sort of somethings? An object or a condition?

    – user2617804
    yesterday











  • VTC: fails to provide a contextual sentence in which the word would be used. As it stands, it's asking for a concept. Try Philosophy.SE

    – Mazura
    yesterday











  • A fill-in-the-blank context can't just be a blank. "allowed to be missing” is just a blank. Where's the rest of the sentence?

    – Mazura
    yesterday



















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– tchrist
Jan 19 at 1:00





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– tchrist
Jan 19 at 1:00













Is there a German word you're looking to replace there? The table itself feels awkward working in an English frame of reference.

– Alex H.
2 days ago





Is there a German word you're looking to replace there? The table itself feels awkward working in an English frame of reference.

– Alex H.
2 days ago













What sort of somethings? An object or a condition?

– user2617804
yesterday





What sort of somethings? An object or a condition?

– user2617804
yesterday













VTC: fails to provide a contextual sentence in which the word would be used. As it stands, it's asking for a concept. Try Philosophy.SE

– Mazura
yesterday





VTC: fails to provide a contextual sentence in which the word would be used. As it stands, it's asking for a concept. Try Philosophy.SE

– Mazura
yesterday













A fill-in-the-blank context can't just be a blank. "allowed to be missing” is just a blank. Where's the rest of the sentence?

– Mazura
yesterday







A fill-in-the-blank context can't just be a blank. "allowed to be missing” is just a blank. Where's the rest of the sentence?

– Mazura
yesterday












10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















15














The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.




  • necessary - it must exist

  • possible - it may exist

  • not necessary - it may not exist

  • not possible - it cannot exist


Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.



For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:




  • necessary: p=1

  • possible: p > 0

  • not necessary: p < 1

  • not possible: p = 0


For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.



This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.



So to your specific questions:





  • Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?



    With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'




  • Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?



    By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.




    • For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.

    • for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.








share|improve this answer





















  • 8





    It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").

    – Kamil Drakari
    Jan 17 at 19:27











  • Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)

    – Stefan Dollase
    Jan 17 at 20:11













  • single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).

    – Mitch
    Jan 17 at 20:35





















91














This is commonly denoted as optional:




available as a choice but not required




(source: Merriam-Webster)



Another example:




The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.







share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.

    – Stefan Dollase
    Jan 17 at 15:27






  • 38





    @StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.

    – only_pro
    Jan 17 at 19:20








  • 3





    @only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."

    – Zebrafish
    Jan 18 at 0:21






  • 3





    @JohnHamilton Not to mention I don't understand the table. Under "allowed to exist" the "don't know" value is "yes", which is correct, but the value of "exists" is "yes" and the value of "doesn't exist" is "no". If we don't know, how could they have either yes or no as values for "exists" and "doesn't exist"? Haha.

    – Zebrafish
    Jan 18 at 14:48








  • 1





    @Zebrafish Plus, if you're making a table, why put words with negatives as headers? Doesn't Exist (Yes) => Exists (No)... which is already in the table. Don't Know (Yes) => Known (No)

    – mbomb007
    Jan 18 at 16:46





















28














Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:




capable of being or allowed to be omitted




https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible



In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:




The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.







share|improve this answer
























  • I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.

    – Stefan Dollase
    Jan 17 at 17:37






  • 2





    I'd be curious to know if anyone here has ever seen, heard or used the word omissible. I get funny looks when I use promulgate or impracticable, but I can't imagine using omissible.

    – Flydog57
    Jan 18 at 17:48






  • 2





    I have heard "omittable" which is apparently not a word and the actual word is "omissible" (which I have never heard.) I would bet that in 10 years or so, "omittable" will show up in the dictionaries as an alternative to omissible.

    – Roddy of the Frozen Peas
    Jan 18 at 20:12













  • @Flydog57 I heard it today in a training session.

    – Araucaria
    Jan 19 at 0:26











  • 'Omit' is the normal form of the verb: "I omitted to mention...". It's similar in construction to permit / permissible

    – DaveMongoose
    18 hours ago



















9














This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.




Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
Something is
unnecessary (allowed to be missing)




You also have the condition:




Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).




If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.






share|improve this answer
























  • Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.

    – Stefan Dollase
    Jan 17 at 17:30











  • "unnecessary" has much more of a connotation of "useless anyway" than "optional" :)

    – rackandboneman
    Jan 18 at 20:23











  • @stefan The negation of a word is "not" followed by the word. The word with the opposite meaning is a different word. There are words that start with a negation that can't be removed, e.g. nonsensical.

    – Matt Samuel
    Jan 18 at 23:46



















5














dispensable




"More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."




Cambridge Dictionary






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    And its cousin, nonindispensible.

    – Owen
    Jan 18 at 4:12



















2














Is your use case Speech? (IE. story telling or writing) Where your intention is to somehow say a character does not know whether a thing exists, but let the reader now it actually does?



The Yes/No nature of the object's existence is hidden by the speaker in most contexts not being able to know the result, so the person speaking the word could never choose the correct one themselves, only an omniscient observer (narrator) could, and it would be in order to signal to the reader the distinction.



In which case you would need to have the narrator remind the person reading of this often enough that they would remember your interpretation of the word.



If so I guess you might use



Omittable.



If this for some list of items, where you DO know whether or not something exists, but you want to denote it's optional, without having a second column.



Or if the user does know the thing exists, and does know whether an optional item exists or not, and wants to denote the item's presence or non-presence and denote the item may or may not exist but it could be created I would use:



Present



or



Existing



Could exist and does right now.



And



Missing



or



Omitted



Could exist, but doesn't right now.



As a Note:



These are binary and mutually exclusive states with can exist and can not exist, so only in very specific contexts would this sort of distinction be useful, (as above) but so below we can see why this isn't something that makes a lot of sense to talk about either.



EXISTS YES / NO (1/0)

Can Exist: YES / NO

Does / Does Not (Exist)
CAN EXIST YES / YES
CANT EXIST NO / NO


So I only came around because I believe you're trying to come up with are ADJECTIVES, but you have the form written as VERBS! That seems to be the heart of the confusion!






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




























    1














    I would say RELEASED.



    According to Macmillan Dictionary
    https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:



    RELEASE



    FORMAL 



    to allow someone not to have to do something



    release someone from something: 



    We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.






    share|improve this answer
























    • Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.

      – Stefan Dollase
      Jan 17 at 17:44











    • @StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.

      – Chemomechanics
      Jan 18 at 3:55





















    0














    I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:





    1. Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.

    2. Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.





    Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?



    The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:




    Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.




    The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.






    share|improve this answer

































      0














      Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.



      For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:



      Ball    Screen   Word(s)
      YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
      NO NO Prohibited / Voided
      YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
      NO YES Evoked / Hinted


      evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




























        0














        (My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.)



        However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:




        Free from a duty or obligation.




        In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.



        This satisfies both conditions set forth by the OP:




        1. Single word able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing". Although exempt does not connote existence in and of itself, it satisfies the condition equally as well as the single word allowed, which also does not connote existence in and of itself.


        2. Single word, the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist". If something is not allowed to be missing (exempt), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed), just as if something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited).



        It also draws a clear line between the first and second cases. Both allowed and exempt indicate something may be missing, but allowed indicates it would ordinarily be absent if not allowed, and exempt indicates it would ordinarily be present if not exempted.






        share|improve this answer
























          protected by tchrist Jan 19 at 1:00



          Thank you for your interest in this question.
          Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



          Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














          10 Answers
          10






          active

          oldest

          votes








          10 Answers
          10






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          15














          The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.




          • necessary - it must exist

          • possible - it may exist

          • not necessary - it may not exist

          • not possible - it cannot exist


          Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.



          For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:




          • necessary: p=1

          • possible: p > 0

          • not necessary: p < 1

          • not possible: p = 0


          For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.



          This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.



          So to your specific questions:





          • Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?



            With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'




          • Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?



            By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.




            • For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.

            • for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.








          share|improve this answer





















          • 8





            It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").

            – Kamil Drakari
            Jan 17 at 19:27











          • Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 20:11













          • single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).

            – Mitch
            Jan 17 at 20:35


















          15














          The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.




          • necessary - it must exist

          • possible - it may exist

          • not necessary - it may not exist

          • not possible - it cannot exist


          Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.



          For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:




          • necessary: p=1

          • possible: p > 0

          • not necessary: p < 1

          • not possible: p = 0


          For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.



          This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.



          So to your specific questions:





          • Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?



            With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'




          • Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?



            By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.




            • For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.

            • for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.








          share|improve this answer





















          • 8





            It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").

            – Kamil Drakari
            Jan 17 at 19:27











          • Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 20:11













          • single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).

            – Mitch
            Jan 17 at 20:35
















          15












          15








          15







          The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.




          • necessary - it must exist

          • possible - it may exist

          • not necessary - it may not exist

          • not possible - it cannot exist


          Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.



          For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:




          • necessary: p=1

          • possible: p > 0

          • not necessary: p < 1

          • not possible: p = 0


          For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.



          This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.



          So to your specific questions:





          • Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?



            With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'




          • Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?



            By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.




            • For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.

            • for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.








          share|improve this answer















          The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.




          • necessary - it must exist

          • possible - it may exist

          • not necessary - it may not exist

          • not possible - it cannot exist


          Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.



          For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:




          • necessary: p=1

          • possible: p > 0

          • not necessary: p < 1

          • not possible: p = 0


          For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.



          This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.



          So to your specific questions:





          • Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?



            With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'




          • Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?



            By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.




            • For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.

            • for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.









          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 17 at 19:15

























          answered Jan 17 at 19:09









          MitchMitch

          51.3k15103214




          51.3k15103214








          • 8





            It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").

            – Kamil Drakari
            Jan 17 at 19:27











          • Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 20:11













          • single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).

            – Mitch
            Jan 17 at 20:35
















          • 8





            It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").

            – Kamil Drakari
            Jan 17 at 19:27











          • Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 20:11













          • single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).

            – Mitch
            Jan 17 at 20:35










          8




          8





          It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").

          – Kamil Drakari
          Jan 17 at 19:27





          It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").

          – Kamil Drakari
          Jan 17 at 19:27













          Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)

          – Stefan Dollase
          Jan 17 at 20:11







          Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)

          – Stefan Dollase
          Jan 17 at 20:11















          single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).

          – Mitch
          Jan 17 at 20:35







          single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).

          – Mitch
          Jan 17 at 20:35















          91














          This is commonly denoted as optional:




          available as a choice but not required




          (source: Merriam-Webster)



          Another example:




          The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.







          share|improve this answer



















          • 1





            Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 15:27






          • 38





            @StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.

            – only_pro
            Jan 17 at 19:20








          • 3





            @only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."

            – Zebrafish
            Jan 18 at 0:21






          • 3





            @JohnHamilton Not to mention I don't understand the table. Under "allowed to exist" the "don't know" value is "yes", which is correct, but the value of "exists" is "yes" and the value of "doesn't exist" is "no". If we don't know, how could they have either yes or no as values for "exists" and "doesn't exist"? Haha.

            – Zebrafish
            Jan 18 at 14:48








          • 1





            @Zebrafish Plus, if you're making a table, why put words with negatives as headers? Doesn't Exist (Yes) => Exists (No)... which is already in the table. Don't Know (Yes) => Known (No)

            – mbomb007
            Jan 18 at 16:46


















          91














          This is commonly denoted as optional:




          available as a choice but not required




          (source: Merriam-Webster)



          Another example:




          The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.







          share|improve this answer



















          • 1





            Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 15:27






          • 38





            @StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.

            – only_pro
            Jan 17 at 19:20








          • 3





            @only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."

            – Zebrafish
            Jan 18 at 0:21






          • 3





            @JohnHamilton Not to mention I don't understand the table. Under "allowed to exist" the "don't know" value is "yes", which is correct, but the value of "exists" is "yes" and the value of "doesn't exist" is "no". If we don't know, how could they have either yes or no as values for "exists" and "doesn't exist"? Haha.

            – Zebrafish
            Jan 18 at 14:48








          • 1





            @Zebrafish Plus, if you're making a table, why put words with negatives as headers? Doesn't Exist (Yes) => Exists (No)... which is already in the table. Don't Know (Yes) => Known (No)

            – mbomb007
            Jan 18 at 16:46
















          91












          91








          91







          This is commonly denoted as optional:




          available as a choice but not required




          (source: Merriam-Webster)



          Another example:




          The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.







          share|improve this answer













          This is commonly denoted as optional:




          available as a choice but not required




          (source: Merriam-Webster)



          Another example:




          The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.








          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 17 at 15:08









          GlorfindelGlorfindel

          7,489103741




          7,489103741








          • 1





            Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 15:27






          • 38





            @StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.

            – only_pro
            Jan 17 at 19:20








          • 3





            @only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."

            – Zebrafish
            Jan 18 at 0:21






          • 3





            @JohnHamilton Not to mention I don't understand the table. Under "allowed to exist" the "don't know" value is "yes", which is correct, but the value of "exists" is "yes" and the value of "doesn't exist" is "no". If we don't know, how could they have either yes or no as values for "exists" and "doesn't exist"? Haha.

            – Zebrafish
            Jan 18 at 14:48








          • 1





            @Zebrafish Plus, if you're making a table, why put words with negatives as headers? Doesn't Exist (Yes) => Exists (No)... which is already in the table. Don't Know (Yes) => Known (No)

            – mbomb007
            Jan 18 at 16:46
















          • 1





            Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 15:27






          • 38





            @StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.

            – only_pro
            Jan 17 at 19:20








          • 3





            @only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."

            – Zebrafish
            Jan 18 at 0:21






          • 3





            @JohnHamilton Not to mention I don't understand the table. Under "allowed to exist" the "don't know" value is "yes", which is correct, but the value of "exists" is "yes" and the value of "doesn't exist" is "no". If we don't know, how could they have either yes or no as values for "exists" and "doesn't exist"? Haha.

            – Zebrafish
            Jan 18 at 14:48








          • 1





            @Zebrafish Plus, if you're making a table, why put words with negatives as headers? Doesn't Exist (Yes) => Exists (No)... which is already in the table. Don't Know (Yes) => Known (No)

            – mbomb007
            Jan 18 at 16:46










          1




          1





          Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.

          – Stefan Dollase
          Jan 17 at 15:27





          Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.

          – Stefan Dollase
          Jan 17 at 15:27




          38




          38





          @StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.

          – only_pro
          Jan 17 at 19:20







          @StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.

          – only_pro
          Jan 17 at 19:20






          3




          3





          @only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."

          – Zebrafish
          Jan 18 at 0:21





          @only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."

          – Zebrafish
          Jan 18 at 0:21




          3




          3





          @JohnHamilton Not to mention I don't understand the table. Under "allowed to exist" the "don't know" value is "yes", which is correct, but the value of "exists" is "yes" and the value of "doesn't exist" is "no". If we don't know, how could they have either yes or no as values for "exists" and "doesn't exist"? Haha.

          – Zebrafish
          Jan 18 at 14:48







          @JohnHamilton Not to mention I don't understand the table. Under "allowed to exist" the "don't know" value is "yes", which is correct, but the value of "exists" is "yes" and the value of "doesn't exist" is "no". If we don't know, how could they have either yes or no as values for "exists" and "doesn't exist"? Haha.

          – Zebrafish
          Jan 18 at 14:48






          1




          1





          @Zebrafish Plus, if you're making a table, why put words with negatives as headers? Doesn't Exist (Yes) => Exists (No)... which is already in the table. Don't Know (Yes) => Known (No)

          – mbomb007
          Jan 18 at 16:46







          @Zebrafish Plus, if you're making a table, why put words with negatives as headers? Doesn't Exist (Yes) => Exists (No)... which is already in the table. Don't Know (Yes) => Known (No)

          – mbomb007
          Jan 18 at 16:46













          28














          Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:




          capable of being or allowed to be omitted




          https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible



          In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:




          The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.







          share|improve this answer
























          • I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 17:37






          • 2





            I'd be curious to know if anyone here has ever seen, heard or used the word omissible. I get funny looks when I use promulgate or impracticable, but I can't imagine using omissible.

            – Flydog57
            Jan 18 at 17:48






          • 2





            I have heard "omittable" which is apparently not a word and the actual word is "omissible" (which I have never heard.) I would bet that in 10 years or so, "omittable" will show up in the dictionaries as an alternative to omissible.

            – Roddy of the Frozen Peas
            Jan 18 at 20:12













          • @Flydog57 I heard it today in a training session.

            – Araucaria
            Jan 19 at 0:26











          • 'Omit' is the normal form of the verb: "I omitted to mention...". It's similar in construction to permit / permissible

            – DaveMongoose
            18 hours ago
















          28














          Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:




          capable of being or allowed to be omitted




          https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible



          In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:




          The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.







          share|improve this answer
























          • I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 17:37






          • 2





            I'd be curious to know if anyone here has ever seen, heard or used the word omissible. I get funny looks when I use promulgate or impracticable, but I can't imagine using omissible.

            – Flydog57
            Jan 18 at 17:48






          • 2





            I have heard "omittable" which is apparently not a word and the actual word is "omissible" (which I have never heard.) I would bet that in 10 years or so, "omittable" will show up in the dictionaries as an alternative to omissible.

            – Roddy of the Frozen Peas
            Jan 18 at 20:12













          • @Flydog57 I heard it today in a training session.

            – Araucaria
            Jan 19 at 0:26











          • 'Omit' is the normal form of the verb: "I omitted to mention...". It's similar in construction to permit / permissible

            – DaveMongoose
            18 hours ago














          28












          28








          28







          Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:




          capable of being or allowed to be omitted




          https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible



          In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:




          The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.







          share|improve this answer













          Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:




          capable of being or allowed to be omitted




          https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible



          In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:




          The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.








          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 17 at 17:13









          ShoeShoe

          25.4k43888




          25.4k43888













          • I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 17:37






          • 2





            I'd be curious to know if anyone here has ever seen, heard or used the word omissible. I get funny looks when I use promulgate or impracticable, but I can't imagine using omissible.

            – Flydog57
            Jan 18 at 17:48






          • 2





            I have heard "omittable" which is apparently not a word and the actual word is "omissible" (which I have never heard.) I would bet that in 10 years or so, "omittable" will show up in the dictionaries as an alternative to omissible.

            – Roddy of the Frozen Peas
            Jan 18 at 20:12













          • @Flydog57 I heard it today in a training session.

            – Araucaria
            Jan 19 at 0:26











          • 'Omit' is the normal form of the verb: "I omitted to mention...". It's similar in construction to permit / permissible

            – DaveMongoose
            18 hours ago



















          • I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 17:37






          • 2





            I'd be curious to know if anyone here has ever seen, heard or used the word omissible. I get funny looks when I use promulgate or impracticable, but I can't imagine using omissible.

            – Flydog57
            Jan 18 at 17:48






          • 2





            I have heard "omittable" which is apparently not a word and the actual word is "omissible" (which I have never heard.) I would bet that in 10 years or so, "omittable" will show up in the dictionaries as an alternative to omissible.

            – Roddy of the Frozen Peas
            Jan 18 at 20:12













          • @Flydog57 I heard it today in a training session.

            – Araucaria
            Jan 19 at 0:26











          • 'Omit' is the normal form of the verb: "I omitted to mention...". It's similar in construction to permit / permissible

            – DaveMongoose
            18 hours ago

















          I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.

          – Stefan Dollase
          Jan 17 at 17:37





          I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.

          – Stefan Dollase
          Jan 17 at 17:37




          2




          2





          I'd be curious to know if anyone here has ever seen, heard or used the word omissible. I get funny looks when I use promulgate or impracticable, but I can't imagine using omissible.

          – Flydog57
          Jan 18 at 17:48





          I'd be curious to know if anyone here has ever seen, heard or used the word omissible. I get funny looks when I use promulgate or impracticable, but I can't imagine using omissible.

          – Flydog57
          Jan 18 at 17:48




          2




          2





          I have heard "omittable" which is apparently not a word and the actual word is "omissible" (which I have never heard.) I would bet that in 10 years or so, "omittable" will show up in the dictionaries as an alternative to omissible.

          – Roddy of the Frozen Peas
          Jan 18 at 20:12







          I have heard "omittable" which is apparently not a word and the actual word is "omissible" (which I have never heard.) I would bet that in 10 years or so, "omittable" will show up in the dictionaries as an alternative to omissible.

          – Roddy of the Frozen Peas
          Jan 18 at 20:12















          @Flydog57 I heard it today in a training session.

          – Araucaria
          Jan 19 at 0:26





          @Flydog57 I heard it today in a training session.

          – Araucaria
          Jan 19 at 0:26













          'Omit' is the normal form of the verb: "I omitted to mention...". It's similar in construction to permit / permissible

          – DaveMongoose
          18 hours ago





          'Omit' is the normal form of the verb: "I omitted to mention...". It's similar in construction to permit / permissible

          – DaveMongoose
          18 hours ago











          9














          This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.




          Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
          Something is
          unnecessary (allowed to be missing)




          You also have the condition:




          Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
          it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).




          If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 17:30











          • "unnecessary" has much more of a connotation of "useless anyway" than "optional" :)

            – rackandboneman
            Jan 18 at 20:23











          • @stefan The negation of a word is "not" followed by the word. The word with the opposite meaning is a different word. There are words that start with a negation that can't be removed, e.g. nonsensical.

            – Matt Samuel
            Jan 18 at 23:46
















          9














          This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.




          Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
          Something is
          unnecessary (allowed to be missing)




          You also have the condition:




          Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
          it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).




          If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 17:30











          • "unnecessary" has much more of a connotation of "useless anyway" than "optional" :)

            – rackandboneman
            Jan 18 at 20:23











          • @stefan The negation of a word is "not" followed by the word. The word with the opposite meaning is a different word. There are words that start with a negation that can't be removed, e.g. nonsensical.

            – Matt Samuel
            Jan 18 at 23:46














          9












          9








          9







          This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.




          Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
          Something is
          unnecessary (allowed to be missing)




          You also have the condition:




          Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
          it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).




          If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.






          share|improve this answer













          This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.




          Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
          Something is
          unnecessary (allowed to be missing)




          You also have the condition:




          Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
          it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).




          If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 17 at 16:12









          ZebrafishZebrafish

          9,43731334




          9,43731334













          • Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 17:30











          • "unnecessary" has much more of a connotation of "useless anyway" than "optional" :)

            – rackandboneman
            Jan 18 at 20:23











          • @stefan The negation of a word is "not" followed by the word. The word with the opposite meaning is a different word. There are words that start with a negation that can't be removed, e.g. nonsensical.

            – Matt Samuel
            Jan 18 at 23:46



















          • Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.

            – Stefan Dollase
            Jan 17 at 17:30











          • "unnecessary" has much more of a connotation of "useless anyway" than "optional" :)

            – rackandboneman
            Jan 18 at 20:23











          • @stefan The negation of a word is "not" followed by the word. The word with the opposite meaning is a different word. There are words that start with a negation that can't be removed, e.g. nonsensical.

            – Matt Samuel
            Jan 18 at 23:46

















          Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.

          – Stefan Dollase
          Jan 17 at 17:30





          Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.

          – Stefan Dollase
          Jan 17 at 17:30













          "unnecessary" has much more of a connotation of "useless anyway" than "optional" :)

          – rackandboneman
          Jan 18 at 20:23





          "unnecessary" has much more of a connotation of "useless anyway" than "optional" :)

          – rackandboneman
          Jan 18 at 20:23













          @stefan The negation of a word is "not" followed by the word. The word with the opposite meaning is a different word. There are words that start with a negation that can't be removed, e.g. nonsensical.

          – Matt Samuel
          Jan 18 at 23:46





          @stefan The negation of a word is "not" followed by the word. The word with the opposite meaning is a different word. There are words that start with a negation that can't be removed, e.g. nonsensical.

          – Matt Samuel
          Jan 18 at 23:46











          5














          dispensable




          "More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."




          Cambridge Dictionary






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            And its cousin, nonindispensible.

            – Owen
            Jan 18 at 4:12
















          5














          dispensable




          "More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."




          Cambridge Dictionary






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            And its cousin, nonindispensible.

            – Owen
            Jan 18 at 4:12














          5












          5








          5







          dispensable




          "More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."




          Cambridge Dictionary






          share|improve this answer















          dispensable




          "More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."




          Cambridge Dictionary







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 18 at 15:27

























          answered Jan 18 at 3:50









          Pedro LobitoPedro Lobito

          1514




          1514








          • 1





            And its cousin, nonindispensible.

            – Owen
            Jan 18 at 4:12














          • 1





            And its cousin, nonindispensible.

            – Owen
            Jan 18 at 4:12








          1




          1





          And its cousin, nonindispensible.

          – Owen
          Jan 18 at 4:12





          And its cousin, nonindispensible.

          – Owen
          Jan 18 at 4:12











          2














          Is your use case Speech? (IE. story telling or writing) Where your intention is to somehow say a character does not know whether a thing exists, but let the reader now it actually does?



          The Yes/No nature of the object's existence is hidden by the speaker in most contexts not being able to know the result, so the person speaking the word could never choose the correct one themselves, only an omniscient observer (narrator) could, and it would be in order to signal to the reader the distinction.



          In which case you would need to have the narrator remind the person reading of this often enough that they would remember your interpretation of the word.



          If so I guess you might use



          Omittable.



          If this for some list of items, where you DO know whether or not something exists, but you want to denote it's optional, without having a second column.



          Or if the user does know the thing exists, and does know whether an optional item exists or not, and wants to denote the item's presence or non-presence and denote the item may or may not exist but it could be created I would use:



          Present



          or



          Existing



          Could exist and does right now.



          And



          Missing



          or



          Omitted



          Could exist, but doesn't right now.



          As a Note:



          These are binary and mutually exclusive states with can exist and can not exist, so only in very specific contexts would this sort of distinction be useful, (as above) but so below we can see why this isn't something that makes a lot of sense to talk about either.



          EXISTS YES / NO (1/0)

          Can Exist: YES / NO

          Does / Does Not (Exist)
          CAN EXIST YES / YES
          CANT EXIST NO / NO


          So I only came around because I believe you're trying to come up with are ADJECTIVES, but you have the form written as VERBS! That seems to be the heart of the confusion!






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.

























            2














            Is your use case Speech? (IE. story telling or writing) Where your intention is to somehow say a character does not know whether a thing exists, but let the reader now it actually does?



            The Yes/No nature of the object's existence is hidden by the speaker in most contexts not being able to know the result, so the person speaking the word could never choose the correct one themselves, only an omniscient observer (narrator) could, and it would be in order to signal to the reader the distinction.



            In which case you would need to have the narrator remind the person reading of this often enough that they would remember your interpretation of the word.



            If so I guess you might use



            Omittable.



            If this for some list of items, where you DO know whether or not something exists, but you want to denote it's optional, without having a second column.



            Or if the user does know the thing exists, and does know whether an optional item exists or not, and wants to denote the item's presence or non-presence and denote the item may or may not exist but it could be created I would use:



            Present



            or



            Existing



            Could exist and does right now.



            And



            Missing



            or



            Omitted



            Could exist, but doesn't right now.



            As a Note:



            These are binary and mutually exclusive states with can exist and can not exist, so only in very specific contexts would this sort of distinction be useful, (as above) but so below we can see why this isn't something that makes a lot of sense to talk about either.



            EXISTS YES / NO (1/0)

            Can Exist: YES / NO

            Does / Does Not (Exist)
            CAN EXIST YES / YES
            CANT EXIST NO / NO


            So I only came around because I believe you're trying to come up with are ADJECTIVES, but you have the form written as VERBS! That seems to be the heart of the confusion!






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.























              2












              2








              2







              Is your use case Speech? (IE. story telling or writing) Where your intention is to somehow say a character does not know whether a thing exists, but let the reader now it actually does?



              The Yes/No nature of the object's existence is hidden by the speaker in most contexts not being able to know the result, so the person speaking the word could never choose the correct one themselves, only an omniscient observer (narrator) could, and it would be in order to signal to the reader the distinction.



              In which case you would need to have the narrator remind the person reading of this often enough that they would remember your interpretation of the word.



              If so I guess you might use



              Omittable.



              If this for some list of items, where you DO know whether or not something exists, but you want to denote it's optional, without having a second column.



              Or if the user does know the thing exists, and does know whether an optional item exists or not, and wants to denote the item's presence or non-presence and denote the item may or may not exist but it could be created I would use:



              Present



              or



              Existing



              Could exist and does right now.



              And



              Missing



              or



              Omitted



              Could exist, but doesn't right now.



              As a Note:



              These are binary and mutually exclusive states with can exist and can not exist, so only in very specific contexts would this sort of distinction be useful, (as above) but so below we can see why this isn't something that makes a lot of sense to talk about either.



              EXISTS YES / NO (1/0)

              Can Exist: YES / NO

              Does / Does Not (Exist)
              CAN EXIST YES / YES
              CANT EXIST NO / NO


              So I only came around because I believe you're trying to come up with are ADJECTIVES, but you have the form written as VERBS! That seems to be the heart of the confusion!






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.










              Is your use case Speech? (IE. story telling or writing) Where your intention is to somehow say a character does not know whether a thing exists, but let the reader now it actually does?



              The Yes/No nature of the object's existence is hidden by the speaker in most contexts not being able to know the result, so the person speaking the word could never choose the correct one themselves, only an omniscient observer (narrator) could, and it would be in order to signal to the reader the distinction.



              In which case you would need to have the narrator remind the person reading of this often enough that they would remember your interpretation of the word.



              If so I guess you might use



              Omittable.



              If this for some list of items, where you DO know whether or not something exists, but you want to denote it's optional, without having a second column.



              Or if the user does know the thing exists, and does know whether an optional item exists or not, and wants to denote the item's presence or non-presence and denote the item may or may not exist but it could be created I would use:



              Present



              or



              Existing



              Could exist and does right now.



              And



              Missing



              or



              Omitted



              Could exist, but doesn't right now.



              As a Note:



              These are binary and mutually exclusive states with can exist and can not exist, so only in very specific contexts would this sort of distinction be useful, (as above) but so below we can see why this isn't something that makes a lot of sense to talk about either.



              EXISTS YES / NO (1/0)

              Can Exist: YES / NO

              Does / Does Not (Exist)
              CAN EXIST YES / YES
              CANT EXIST NO / NO


              So I only came around because I believe you're trying to come up with are ADJECTIVES, but you have the form written as VERBS! That seems to be the heart of the confusion!







              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jan 18 at 23:02





















              New contributor




              Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              answered Jan 18 at 22:35









              Ben PersonickBen Personick

              1213




              1213




              New contributor




              Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





              New contributor





              Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              Ben Personick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.























                  1














                  I would say RELEASED.



                  According to Macmillan Dictionary
                  https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:



                  RELEASE



                  FORMAL 



                  to allow someone not to have to do something



                  release someone from something: 



                  We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.






                  share|improve this answer
























                  • Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.

                    – Stefan Dollase
                    Jan 17 at 17:44











                  • @StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.

                    – Chemomechanics
                    Jan 18 at 3:55


















                  1














                  I would say RELEASED.



                  According to Macmillan Dictionary
                  https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:



                  RELEASE



                  FORMAL 



                  to allow someone not to have to do something



                  release someone from something: 



                  We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.






                  share|improve this answer
























                  • Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.

                    – Stefan Dollase
                    Jan 17 at 17:44











                  • @StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.

                    – Chemomechanics
                    Jan 18 at 3:55
















                  1












                  1








                  1







                  I would say RELEASED.



                  According to Macmillan Dictionary
                  https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:



                  RELEASE



                  FORMAL 



                  to allow someone not to have to do something



                  release someone from something: 



                  We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.






                  share|improve this answer













                  I would say RELEASED.



                  According to Macmillan Dictionary
                  https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:



                  RELEASE



                  FORMAL 



                  to allow someone not to have to do something



                  release someone from something: 



                  We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 17 at 17:33









                  user307254user307254

                  3,903515




                  3,903515













                  • Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.

                    – Stefan Dollase
                    Jan 17 at 17:44











                  • @StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.

                    – Chemomechanics
                    Jan 18 at 3:55





















                  • Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.

                    – Stefan Dollase
                    Jan 17 at 17:44











                  • @StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.

                    – Chemomechanics
                    Jan 18 at 3:55



















                  Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.

                  – Stefan Dollase
                  Jan 17 at 17:44





                  Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.

                  – Stefan Dollase
                  Jan 17 at 17:44













                  @StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.

                  – Chemomechanics
                  Jan 18 at 3:55







                  @StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.

                  – Chemomechanics
                  Jan 18 at 3:55













                  0














                  I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:





                  1. Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.

                  2. Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.





                  Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?



                  The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:




                  Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.




                  The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.






                  share|improve this answer






























                    0














                    I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:





                    1. Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.

                    2. Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.





                    Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?



                    The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:




                    Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.




                    The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.






                    share|improve this answer




























                      0












                      0








                      0







                      I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:





                      1. Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.

                      2. Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.





                      Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?



                      The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:




                      Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.




                      The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.






                      share|improve this answer















                      I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:





                      1. Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.

                      2. Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.





                      Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?



                      The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:




                      Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.




                      The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Jan 17 at 18:30

























                      answered Jan 17 at 18:15









                      TonepoetTonepoet

                      3,51611527




                      3,51611527























                          0














                          Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.



                          For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:



                          Ball    Screen   Word(s)
                          YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
                          NO NO Prohibited / Voided
                          YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
                          NO YES Evoked / Hinted


                          evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                            0














                            Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.



                            For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:



                            Ball    Screen   Word(s)
                            YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
                            NO NO Prohibited / Voided
                            YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
                            NO YES Evoked / Hinted


                            evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]






                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.























                              0












                              0








                              0







                              Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.



                              For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:



                              Ball    Screen   Word(s)
                              YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
                              NO NO Prohibited / Voided
                              YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
                              NO YES Evoked / Hinted


                              evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]






                              share|improve this answer








                              New contributor




                              aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.










                              Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.



                              For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:



                              Ball    Screen   Word(s)
                              YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
                              NO NO Prohibited / Voided
                              YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
                              NO YES Evoked / Hinted


                              evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]







                              share|improve this answer








                              New contributor




                              aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.









                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer






                              New contributor




                              aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.









                              answered Jan 18 at 10:12









                              aepryusaepryus

                              1093




                              1093




                              New contributor




                              aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.





                              New contributor





                              aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.






                              aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.























                                  0














                                  (My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.)



                                  However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:




                                  Free from a duty or obligation.




                                  In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.



                                  This satisfies both conditions set forth by the OP:




                                  1. Single word able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing". Although exempt does not connote existence in and of itself, it satisfies the condition equally as well as the single word allowed, which also does not connote existence in and of itself.


                                  2. Single word, the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist". If something is not allowed to be missing (exempt), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed), just as if something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited).



                                  It also draws a clear line between the first and second cases. Both allowed and exempt indicate something may be missing, but allowed indicates it would ordinarily be absent if not allowed, and exempt indicates it would ordinarily be present if not exempted.






                                  share|improve this answer






























                                    0














                                    (My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.)



                                    However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:




                                    Free from a duty or obligation.




                                    In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.



                                    This satisfies both conditions set forth by the OP:




                                    1. Single word able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing". Although exempt does not connote existence in and of itself, it satisfies the condition equally as well as the single word allowed, which also does not connote existence in and of itself.


                                    2. Single word, the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist". If something is not allowed to be missing (exempt), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed), just as if something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited).



                                    It also draws a clear line between the first and second cases. Both allowed and exempt indicate something may be missing, but allowed indicates it would ordinarily be absent if not allowed, and exempt indicates it would ordinarily be present if not exempted.






                                    share|improve this answer




























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      (My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.)



                                      However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:




                                      Free from a duty or obligation.




                                      In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.



                                      This satisfies both conditions set forth by the OP:




                                      1. Single word able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing". Although exempt does not connote existence in and of itself, it satisfies the condition equally as well as the single word allowed, which also does not connote existence in and of itself.


                                      2. Single word, the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist". If something is not allowed to be missing (exempt), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed), just as if something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited).



                                      It also draws a clear line between the first and second cases. Both allowed and exempt indicate something may be missing, but allowed indicates it would ordinarily be absent if not allowed, and exempt indicates it would ordinarily be present if not exempted.






                                      share|improve this answer















                                      (My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.)



                                      However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:




                                      Free from a duty or obligation.




                                      In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.



                                      This satisfies both conditions set forth by the OP:




                                      1. Single word able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing". Although exempt does not connote existence in and of itself, it satisfies the condition equally as well as the single word allowed, which also does not connote existence in and of itself.


                                      2. Single word, the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist". If something is not allowed to be missing (exempt), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed), just as if something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited).



                                      It also draws a clear line between the first and second cases. Both allowed and exempt indicate something may be missing, but allowed indicates it would ordinarily be absent if not allowed, and exempt indicates it would ordinarily be present if not exempted.







                                      share|improve this answer














                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited yesterday

























                                      answered Jan 18 at 4:47









                                      GooseberryGooseberry

                                      20914




                                      20914

















                                          protected by tchrist Jan 19 at 1:00



                                          Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                          Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                          Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          1300-talet

                                          1300-talet

                                          Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8