Single word to replace “allowed to be missing”












4















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.
















  • 2





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

    – Chaim
    4 hours ago











  • @Chaim Thanks for the feedback. I edited my question to clarify this.

    – Stefan Dollase
    4 hours ago






  • 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago











  • @Hellion Thanks for the clarification request. The "don't know" column means "either it exists and I don't know about it or it does not exist and I don't know about it". Thus, the only case that "allowed to exist" excludes is "it does not exist and I know about it". The only case that is excluded by "allowed to be missing" is "it exists and I know about it". I hope this helps?

    – Stefan Dollase
    1 hour ago
















4















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.
















  • 2





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

    – Chaim
    4 hours ago











  • @Chaim Thanks for the feedback. I edited my question to clarify this.

    – Stefan Dollase
    4 hours ago






  • 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago











  • @Hellion Thanks for the clarification request. The "don't know" column means "either it exists and I don't know about it or it does not exist and I don't know about it". Thus, the only case that "allowed to exist" excludes is "it does not exist and I know about it". The only case that is excluded by "allowed to be missing" is "it exists and I know about it". I hope this helps?

    – Stefan Dollase
    1 hour ago














4












4








4








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 2 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 4 hours ago









Stefan DollaseStefan Dollase

1243




1243




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.








  • 2





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

    – Chaim
    4 hours ago











  • @Chaim Thanks for the feedback. I edited my question to clarify this.

    – Stefan Dollase
    4 hours ago






  • 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago











  • @Hellion Thanks for the clarification request. The "don't know" column means "either it exists and I don't know about it or it does not exist and I don't know about it". Thus, the only case that "allowed to exist" excludes is "it does not exist and I know about it". The only case that is excluded by "allowed to be missing" is "it exists and I know about it". I hope this helps?

    – Stefan Dollase
    1 hour ago














  • 2





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

    – Chaim
    4 hours ago











  • @Chaim Thanks for the feedback. I edited my question to clarify this.

    – Stefan Dollase
    4 hours ago






  • 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago











  • @Hellion Thanks for the clarification request. The "don't know" column means "either it exists and I don't know about it or it does not exist and I don't know about it". Thus, the only case that "allowed to exist" excludes is "it does not exist and I know about it". The only case that is excluded by "allowed to be missing" is "it exists and I know about it". I hope this helps?

    – Stefan Dollase
    1 hour ago








2




2





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

– Chaim
4 hours ago





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

– Chaim
4 hours ago













@Chaim Thanks for the feedback. I edited my question to clarify this.

– Stefan Dollase
4 hours ago





@Chaim Thanks for the feedback. I edited my question to clarify this.

– Stefan Dollase
4 hours ago




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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour ago













@Hellion Thanks for the clarification request. The "don't know" column means "either it exists and I don't know about it or it does not exist and I don't know about it". Thus, the only case that "allowed to exist" excludes is "it does not exist and I know about it". The only case that is excluded by "allowed to be missing" is "it exists and I know about it". I hope this helps?

– Stefan Dollase
1 hour ago





@Hellion Thanks for the clarification request. The "don't know" column means "either it exists and I don't know about it or it does not exist and I don't know about it". Thus, the only case that "allowed to exist" excludes is "it does not exist and I know about it". The only case that is excluded by "allowed to be missing" is "it exists and I know about it". I hope this helps?

– Stefan Dollase
1 hour ago










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















8














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
























  • 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
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    @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
    39 mins ago





















3














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
    2 hours ago



















0














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
    2 hours ago



















0














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
    2 hours ago



















0














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





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

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





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



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




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




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






share|improve this answer

































    0














    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


























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

      – Kamil Drakari
      32 mins ago











    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

























    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes








    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    8














    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
























    • 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
      4 hours ago






    • 4





      @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
      39 mins ago


















    8














    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
























    • 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
      4 hours ago






    • 4





      @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
      39 mins ago
















    8












    8








    8







    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 4 hours ago









    GlorfindelGlorfindel

    6,43783339




    6,43783339













    • 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
      4 hours ago






    • 4





      @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
      39 mins ago





















    • 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
      4 hours ago






    • 4





      @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
      39 mins ago



















    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
    4 hours ago





    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
    4 hours ago




    4




    4





    @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
    39 mins 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
    39 mins ago















    3














    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
      2 hours ago
















    3














    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
      2 hours ago














    3












    3








    3







    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 2 hours ago









    ShoeShoe

    25.1k43785




    25.1k43785













    • 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
      2 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
      2 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
    2 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
    2 hours ago











    0














    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
      2 hours ago
















    0














    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
      2 hours ago














    0












    0








    0







    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 3 hours ago









    ZebrafishZebrafish

    9,11931333




    9,11931333













    • 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
      2 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
      2 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
    2 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
    2 hours ago











    0














    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
      2 hours ago
















    0














    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
      2 hours ago














    0












    0








    0







    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 2 hours ago









    user307254user307254

    3,189515




    3,189515













    • 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
      2 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
      2 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
    2 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
    2 hours ago











    0














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





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

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





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



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




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




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






    share|improve this answer






























      0














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





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

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





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



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




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




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






      share|improve this answer




























        0












        0








        0







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





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

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





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



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




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




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






        share|improve this answer















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





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

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





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



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




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




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







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago

























        answered 1 hour ago









        TonepoetTonepoet

        3,50011527




        3,50011527























            0














            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


























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

              – Kamil Drakari
              32 mins ago
















            0














            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


























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

              – Kamil Drakari
              32 mins ago














            0












            0








            0







            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 43 mins ago

























            answered 49 mins ago









            MitchMitch

            51.1k15103212




            51.1k15103212













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

              – Kamil Drakari
              32 mins ago



















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

              – Kamil Drakari
              32 mins ago

















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

            – Kamil Drakari
            32 mins ago





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

            – Kamil Drakari
            32 mins ago










            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

            Magento 2 controller redirect on button click in phtml file

            Polycentropodidae