conspicuously missing

USAGE SUMMARY

"conspicuously missing" is correct and can be used in written English.
It is used to describe something that is unexpectedly not there, or has been removed in a suspicious manner. For example, "The safe was conspicuously missing from the office, leading investigators to believe the thief had access to the combination."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

55 human-written examples

That was conspicuously missing".

The New York Times

Conspicuously missing from the exhibitors is Google.

The Guardian - Tech

Conspicuously missing from sight were any of her five Grammys.

The New York Times - Magazine

One religious figure is conspicuously missing from the interfaith gabathon.

The New York Times

But Israel was conspicuously missing from his itinerary.

The New York Times

In fact, women are conspicuously missing from the book.

The Guardian

One item is conspicuously missing from the auction.

The New York Times - Sports

Little Bush and Big Time were conspicuously missing.

The New York Times

But there are masterpieces conspicuously missing from this particular collection.

The New Yorker

But one nation was conspicuously missing from the list: the US.

The Guardian - Film

Conspicuously missing is her recent cameo in Todd Solondz's "Life During Wartime".

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "conspicuously missing" when you want to draw attention to the absence of something that would normally be expected to be present. It adds a sense of surprise or perhaps even suspicion.

Common error

Avoid using "conspicuously missing" for trivial absences. It's best reserved for situations where the absence is genuinely noteworthy or unexpected. For instance, saying "My keys were conspicuously missing" might be an overstatement unless there's a specific reason to emphasize their absence.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "conspicuously missing" functions as an adjectival phrase, modifying a noun by describing its absence in a noticeable or remarkable way. As Ludwig AI confirms, this phrase is considered grammatically correct and suitable for use in written English.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

100%

Less common in

Science

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "conspicuously missing" is a grammatically correct and frequently used expression, primarily found in news and media contexts. As Ludwig AI points out, it is used to describe something that is unexpectedly not there, or has been removed in a suspicious manner. It functions as an adjectival phrase, emphasizing the noticeable absence of something, often implying significance or surprise. While suitable for formal writing, it should be reserved for truly noteworthy absences to avoid overuse. Alternatives include "noticeably absent" and "markedly absent", providing similar nuances.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

noticeably absent

Emphasizes the ease with which the absence is observed.

markedly absent

Highlights the distinctness of the absence.

obviously lacking

Highlights how apparent the deficiency is.

strikingly absent

Emphasizes how remarkable the absence is.

patently absent

Indicates the absence is undeniable and clear.

clearly absent

Indicates absence is easy to perceive.

visibly absent

Emphasizes the visibility of the absence.

plainly lacking

Highlights the simplicity and obviousness of the deficiency.

glaringly absent

Highlights the obviousness of absence with an element of excess.

significantly absent

Highlights the importance or consequence of being absent.

FAQs

How can I use "conspicuously missing" in a sentence?

You can use "conspicuously missing" to emphasize the absence of something that would normally be expected, such as "The enthusiasm was "conspicuously missing" from the team's performance".

What's a good alternative to "conspicuously missing"?

Alternatives include "noticeably absent", "markedly absent", or "obviously lacking", depending on the specific nuance you wish to convey.

Is it appropriate to use "conspicuously missing" in formal writing?

Yes, "conspicuously missing" is suitable for formal writing, particularly when you want to highlight an unexpected or significant absence in a clear and impactful way.

What does "conspicuously missing" imply?

"Conspicuously missing" implies that the absence is not only noticeable but also suggests that it might be deliberate or have some significance. It draws attention to what's lacking and invites the reader to consider why it's not there.