were not identified

USAGE SUMMARY

"were not identified" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when referring to something or someone that has not yet been identified. Example: The perpetrators of the crime were not identified.

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

The victims were not identified.

The New York Times

The officers were not identified.

The New York Times

(The artists were not identified).

The New York Times

The buyers were not identified.

The New York Times

The programs were not identified.

The New York Times

The teams were not identified.

The New York Times

The nations were not identified.

The New York Times

The players were not identified.

The New York Times

The casinos were not identified.

The New York Times

Those "experts" were not identified.

The Guardian - Opinion

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

1 human-written examples

They were not identified in the statement.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "were not identified", ensure the context clearly indicates who or what was not identified and why that information is relevant. For instance, in crime reporting, it's crucial to state that "the suspects "were not identified"" to manage public expectations and avoid speculation.

Common error

Avoid using "was not identified" when referring to multiple subjects. Always use the plural form "were not identified" when the subject is plural. For example, it should be "The victims "were not identified"", not "The victims was not identified".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "were not identified" functions as a passive construction indicating that the act of identifying someone or something did not occur. As Ludwig AI confirms, it's a usable and grammatically sound phrase. The examples show its use across diverse contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

62%

Science

33%

Formal & Business

5%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "were not identified" is a grammatically correct and frequently used phrase that indicates a lack of identification. As Ludwig AI confirms, it is suitable for use in written English. Its prevalence across news, science, and formal business contexts suggests a neutral register. When employing this phrase, ensure subject-verb agreement and consider alternative expressions like "remained unidentified" or "could not be identified" for nuanced meaning. While frequently encountered, mindful usage and clear contextual application are essential. Based on the source analysis "The New York Times" and "The Guardian" are the most authoritative sources.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

remained unidentified

Focuses on the continuous state of being unidentified.

could not be identified

Emphasizes the inability to perform the identification.

have not been identified

Uses present perfect tense to indicate that identification has not occurred up to the present.

are unidentified

A more concise way to express the state of being unidentified.

were unconfirmed

Suggests that something was not verified or validated.

were unknown

Indicates a lack of knowledge about the subject.

were not specified

Focuses on the lack of specific details being provided.

were not disclosed

Highlights the act of withholding information.

identification was pending

Suggests that the identification process is still in progress.

lacked identification

Directly states the absence of identification.

FAQs

How to use "were not identified" in a sentence?

You can use "were not identified" to indicate that certain entities, such as people or objects, have not been recognized or named. For example, "The sources of the leak "were not identified" during the investigation."

What can I say instead of "were not identified"?

You can use alternatives like "remained unidentified", "could not be identified", or "have not been identified" depending on the context.

Is it correct to say "was not identified" instead of "were not identified"?

The correctness depends on the subject. Use "was not identified" for singular subjects (e.g., "The perpetrator was not identified"), and "were not identified" for plural subjects (e.g., "The perpetrators "were not identified"").

What is the difference between "were not identified" and "remained unknown"?

"Were not identified" implies a specific attempt to identify something, whereas "remained unknown" suggests a lack of knowledge without necessarily implying an identification attempt. For instance, "The bodies "were not identified"" suggests efforts to identify them failed, while "The cause of the illness remained unknown" simply indicates a lack of understanding.