Single word to replace “allowed to be missing”












7















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"?










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.
















  • 7





    I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.

    – Chaim
    yesterday






  • 1





    @StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.

    – Hellion
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    @StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.

    – Hellion
    21 hours ago






  • 2





    Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.

    – Mark Beadles
    20 hours ago








  • 1





    I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.

    – indot_brad
    17 hours ago
















7















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"?










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.
















  • 7





    I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.

    – Chaim
    yesterday






  • 1





    @StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.

    – Hellion
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    @StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.

    – Hellion
    21 hours ago






  • 2





    Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.

    – Mark Beadles
    20 hours ago








  • 1





    I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.

    – indot_brad
    17 hours ago














7












7








7








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"?










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"?







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 22 hours ago







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 yesterday









Stefan DollaseStefan Dollase

1424




1424




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.








  • 7





    I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.

    – Chaim
    yesterday






  • 1





    @StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.

    – Hellion
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    @StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.

    – Hellion
    21 hours ago






  • 2





    Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.

    – Mark Beadles
    20 hours ago








  • 1





    I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.

    – indot_brad
    17 hours ago














  • 7





    I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.

    – Chaim
    yesterday






  • 1





    @StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.

    – Hellion
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    @StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.

    – Hellion
    21 hours ago






  • 2





    Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.

    – Mark Beadles
    20 hours ago








  • 1





    I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.

    – indot_brad
    17 hours ago








7




7





I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.

– Chaim
yesterday





I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.

– Chaim
yesterday




1




1





@StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.

– Hellion
21 hours ago





@StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.

– Hellion
21 hours ago




1




1





@StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.

– Hellion
21 hours ago





@StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.

– Hellion
21 hours ago




2




2





Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.

– Mark Beadles
20 hours ago







Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.

– Mark Beadles
20 hours ago






1




1





I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.

– indot_brad
17 hours ago





I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.

– indot_brad
17 hours ago










10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















48














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
    yesterday






  • 22





    @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
    20 hours ago








  • 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
    15 hours ago











  • @Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.

    – John Hamilton
    2 hours ago













  • @JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.

    – Zebrafish
    1 hour ago



















19














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
    22 hours ago



















9














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





















  • 5





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

    – Kamil Drakari
    20 hours ago











  • 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
    19 hours ago













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

    – Mitch
    19 hours ago





















8














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
    22 hours ago



















3














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
    11 hours ago



















2














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
    22 hours ago











  • @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
    12 hours ago





















2














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

































    1














    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.






    share|improve this answer































      1














      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














        I would use the word...omitted






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "97"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481627%2fsingle-word-to-replace-allowed-to-be-missing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          10 Answers
          10






          active

          oldest

          votes








          10 Answers
          10






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          48














          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
            yesterday






          • 22





            @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
            20 hours ago








          • 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
            15 hours ago











          • @Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.

            – John Hamilton
            2 hours ago













          • @JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.

            – Zebrafish
            1 hour ago
















          48














          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
            yesterday






          • 22





            @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
            20 hours ago








          • 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
            15 hours ago











          • @Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.

            – John Hamilton
            2 hours ago













          • @JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.

            – Zebrafish
            1 hour ago














          48












          48








          48







          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 yesterday









          GlorfindelGlorfindel

          6,75783440




          6,75783440








          • 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
            yesterday






          • 22





            @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
            20 hours ago








          • 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
            15 hours ago











          • @Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.

            – John Hamilton
            2 hours ago













          • @JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.

            – Zebrafish
            1 hour ago














          • 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
            yesterday






          • 22





            @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
            20 hours ago








          • 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
            15 hours ago











          • @Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.

            – John Hamilton
            2 hours ago













          • @JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.

            – Zebrafish
            1 hour ago








          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
          yesterday





          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
          yesterday




          22




          22





          @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
          20 hours ago







          @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
          20 hours ago






          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
          15 hours ago





          @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
          15 hours ago













          @Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.

          – John Hamilton
          2 hours ago







          @Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.

          – John Hamilton
          2 hours ago















          @JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.

          – Zebrafish
          1 hour ago





          @JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.

          – Zebrafish
          1 hour ago













          19














          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
            22 hours ago
















          19














          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
            22 hours ago














          19












          19








          19







          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 22 hours ago









          ShoeShoe

          25.3k43786




          25.3k43786













          • 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
            22 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
            22 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
          22 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
          22 hours ago











          9














          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





















          • 5





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

            – Kamil Drakari
            20 hours ago











          • 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
            19 hours ago













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

            – Mitch
            19 hours ago


















          9














          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





















          • 5





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

            – Kamil Drakari
            20 hours ago











          • 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
            19 hours ago













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

            – Mitch
            19 hours ago
















          9












          9








          9







          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 20 hours ago

























          answered 20 hours ago









          MitchMitch

          51.2k15103212




          51.2k15103212








          • 5





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

            – Kamil Drakari
            20 hours ago











          • 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
            19 hours ago













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

            – Mitch
            19 hours ago
















          • 5





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

            – Kamil Drakari
            20 hours ago











          • 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
            19 hours ago













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

            – Mitch
            19 hours ago










          5




          5





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

          – Kamil Drakari
          20 hours ago





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

          – Kamil Drakari
          20 hours ago













          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
          19 hours ago







          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
          19 hours ago















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

          – Mitch
          19 hours ago







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

          – Mitch
          19 hours ago













          8














          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
            22 hours ago
















          8














          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
            22 hours ago














          8












          8








          8







          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 23 hours ago









          ZebrafishZebrafish

          9,19931333




          9,19931333













          • 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
            22 hours ago



















          • 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
            22 hours ago

















          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
          22 hours ago





          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
          22 hours ago











          3














          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
            11 hours ago
















          3














          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
            11 hours ago














          3












          3








          3







          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 34 mins ago

























          answered 12 hours ago









          Pedro LobitoPedro Lobito

          1314




          1314








          • 1





            And its cousin, nonindispensible.

            – Owen
            11 hours ago














          • 1





            And its cousin, nonindispensible.

            – Owen
            11 hours ago








          1




          1





          And its cousin, nonindispensible.

          – Owen
          11 hours ago





          And its cousin, nonindispensible.

          – Owen
          11 hours ago











          2














          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
            22 hours ago











          • @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
            12 hours ago


















          2














          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
            22 hours ago











          • @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
            12 hours ago
















          2












          2








          2







          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 22 hours ago









          user307254user307254

          3,478515




          3,478515













          • 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
            22 hours ago











          • @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
            12 hours ago





















          • 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
            22 hours ago











          • @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
            12 hours ago



















          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
          22 hours ago





          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
          22 hours ago













          @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
          12 hours ago







          @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
          12 hours ago













          2














          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






























            2














            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




























              2












              2








              2







              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 21 hours ago

























              answered 21 hours ago









              TonepoetTonepoet

              3,52011527




              3,52011527























                  1














                  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.






                  share|improve this answer




























                    1














                    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.






                    share|improve this answer


























                      1












                      1








                      1







                      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.






                      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.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 11 hours ago









                      GooseberryGooseberry

                      21113




                      21113























                          1














                          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.

























                            1














                            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.























                              1












                              1








                              1







                              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 5 hours ago









                              aepryusaepryus

                              1113




                              1113




                              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














                                  I would use the word...omitted






                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                                    0














                                    I would use the word...omitted






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    user332558 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







                                      I would use the word...omitted






                                      share|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                      I would use the word...omitted







                                      share|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      user332558 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




                                      user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      answered 22 mins ago









                                      user332558user332558

                                      1




                                      1




                                      New contributor




                                      user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                      New contributor





                                      user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                      user332558 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. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded


















                                          Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                          Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481627%2fsingle-word-to-replace-allowed-to-be-missing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Callistus I

                                          Tabula Rosettana

                                          How to label and detect the document text images