was conspicuously absent

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was conspicuously absent" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe someone or something that is noticeably missing from a situation or event. Example: "During the meeting, the CEO was conspicuously absent, raising concerns among the staff about the company's direction."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Encyclopedias

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

Gloria was conspicuously absent.

The New York Times

France was conspicuously absent.

The New York Times

(Ms. Zoe was conspicuously absent).

The New York Times

But Nouvel was conspicuously absent.

The Guardian - Arts

Lehman Brothers was conspicuously absent.

The New York Times

JPMorgan was conspicuously absent at the roundtable.

The New York Times

The vindictive Romanian was conspicuously absent.

The New Yorker

That appeal was conspicuously absent yesterday.

The New York Times

The fourth, Pier Ferdinando Casini, was conspicuously absent.

The Economist

However Bond's vast political acquaintance was conspicuously absent.

The Guardian

However the Commonwealth-funded age pension was conspicuously absent.

The Guardian

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "was conspicuously absent" when you want to emphasize that an absence was noticeable and significant. It suggests that the missing person or thing was expected to be present.

Common error

Avoid using "was conspicuously absent" in casual conversation or informal writing. Simpler alternatives like "wasn't there" or "was missing" are often more appropriate.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was conspicuously absent" functions as a descriptive element within a sentence, indicating that the absence of someone or something was easily noticeable and often significant. As Ludwig AI underlines, this phrase is grammatically correct and suitable for use in written English.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

79%

Science

10%

Encyclopedias

3%

Less common in

Formal & Business

3%

Wiki

2%

Reference

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was conspicuously absent" is a grammatically sound and frequently used expression, primarily found in news and media, science and encyclopedia contexts. Ludwig AI confirms its correctness and usability. The phrase is used to highlight a noticeable absence, often implying its significance. While versatile, it is best suited for formal or neutral registers. Remember to consider simpler alternatives like "was noticeably missing" in less formal situations. Therefore, use "was conspicuously absent" to create a precise observation about a noteworthy absence.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was noticeably missing

Replaces "conspicuously" with "noticeably", emphasizing the ease with which the absence is observed.

was conspicuously not present

It uses a more formal tone by using not present instead of absent

was strikingly unpresent

Uses "strikingly" to highlight the unexpected or remarkable nature of the absence.

was markedly away

Employs "markedly" to underscore how clearly the absence was perceived.

was plainly not in attendance

Replaces "absent" with "not in attendance", creating a more formal tone.

was evidently not there

Replaces "conspicuously absent" with a more straightforward observation.

stood out by their absence

Shifts the focus to the impact of the absence, rather than just stating it.

was remarkably out of sight

Describes the absence with a focus on being out of view or notice.

was glaringly omitted

Uses "glaringly" to emphasize how obvious the omission or absence was.

was prominently elsewhere

Suggests that the subject's presence was expected, but they were known to be in another location.

FAQs

How can I use "was conspicuously absent" in a sentence?

Use "was conspicuously absent" to highlight that someone or something was noticeably missing. For example, "The main speaker "was conspicuously absent" from the conference, which disappointed many attendees."

What are some alternatives to "was conspicuously absent"?

Alternatives include "was noticeably missing", "was strikingly unpresent", or "stood out by their absence", depending on the specific nuance you want to convey.

Is it better to say "was conspicuously absent" or "was noticeably absent"?

Both phrases are grammatically correct and convey a similar meaning. "Was conspicuously absent" emphasizes the unexpectedness or importance of the absence, while "was noticeably absent" simply highlights that the absence was easily observed.

When is it appropriate to use "was conspicuously absent" in writing?

It's appropriate to use "was conspicuously absent" in formal writing, news reports, or academic papers where you want to draw attention to a significant absence. Avoid using it in very casual or informal contexts where simpler language would be more suitable.