was not established

USAGE SUMMARY

"was not established" is correct and perfectly usable in written English.
You can use it to indicate that something was not established or proven, e.g., "The exact cause of the fire was not established."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

News & Media

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

A perfect cohesion was not established.

Composites Part B: Engineering

The cause of the seizures was not established.

Stanford University

The outcome of the procedure was not established.

The Guardian

But the PC industry was not established then.

Harvard Business Review

The International Society of Sport Psychology was not established until 1965.

Encyclopedia Britannica

It was not established by the citizens themselves".

The New York Times

A separate department of neurological surgery was not established until 1949.

Columbia University

It was Czechoslovakia — not the Czech Republic, which was not established until 1993.

The New York Times

It existed between 1949 and 1967; it was not established after the 1967 war.

The New York Times

Yet Blue Cross Blue Shield concluded that the usefulness of the metabolism tests was not established.

The New York Times

The identity of the people who used the phones was not established.

The Guardian

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was not established", ensure you clearly state what could not be established and, if possible, why. This adds clarity and context to your writing.

Common error

Avoid using "was not established" without specifying what 'it' refers to. Always provide context to prevent ambiguity.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was not established" functions as a passive voice construction, indicating a lack of confirmation, proof, or formal creation. As Ludwig AI confirms, it's grammatically sound. It highlights that something has not been successfully proven or set up.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

38%

News & Media

33%

Academia

15%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

5%

Wiki

5%

Formal & Business

4%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "was not established" is a grammatically correct and very common passive construction used to indicate a lack of proof, confirmation, or formal creation. As Ludwig AI also confirms, it's a valid and useful expression in English writing. Predominantly found in scientific, news, and academic contexts, this phrase serves to communicate uncertainty or the absence of definitive evidence. When employing this phrase, ensure clarity by specifying what "it" refers to and why it couldn't be established. Alternatives include phrases like "remained unconfirmed" or "could not be verified" for formal tones.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was not proven

Replaces 'established' with 'proven', focusing on the lack of evidence.

was not determined

Substitutes 'established' with 'determined', highlighting the lack of a definite conclusion.

remained unconfirmed

Uses 'unconfirmed' to indicate that something has not been verified.

could not be verified

Emphasizes the inability to confirm something's validity.

was not validated

Replaces 'established' with 'validated', stressing the lack of formal approval or confirmation.

failed to be established

Emphasizes the failure in the attempt to establish something.

was not substantiated

Uses 'substantiated' to indicate a lack of supporting evidence.

defied establishment

Highlights the resistance or inability to be established.

was not instituted

Replaces 'established' with 'instituted', focusing on the lack of implementation.

did not come into existence

Expresses that something never began or started being.

FAQs

How can I use "was not established" in a sentence?

Use "was not established" to indicate that something has not been proven, confirmed, or formally set up. For example, "The link between the two events was not established."

What's a formal alternative to "was not established"?

In formal contexts, you can use phrases like "remained unconfirmed" or "could not be verified" instead of "was not established".

Is it better to use active or passive voice with "was not established"?

The phrase "was not established" is already in the passive voice. Using the active voice would require restructuring the sentence, such as "They did not establish the cause."

What does it mean when something "was not established"?

It means that something has not been proven true, officially recognized, or formally created. The status of being unestablished is the core idea.