Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm looking for a single word that can describe a container object as having the ability to be in a state of emptiness.

The first word that springs to mind is "emptiable", but that implies an ability to change the state, rather than the possibility of "empty" being a state at all.

I'm looking for a word that describes that possibility. What do you call something that may or may not be empty?

I've been dancing around the word "void", but that seems to have the same issues (see "voidable").

share|improve this question
1  
Is there any chance you could give us a bit more context? I'm having a tough time differentiating between something being able to be emptied (which would imply that an empty state is possible) vs. something able to be empty. (The only difference I can discern is that that perhaps it can be empty, but once it contains something it cannot be emptied... –  Dusty Mar 7 '11 at 16:05
1  
If this was SO or a number of other SE sites, 'nullable' could be the answer :-) –  Mark Hurd Mar 7 '11 at 16:32
    
Null is neither empty nor filled. It is "unknown" –  Gennady Vanin Novosibirsk Mar 7 '11 at 16:48
    
Thanks for the answers guys, @Dusty you're correct, what I'm looking for is something that is able to be empty, not necessarily 'emptied'. To provide some context, imagine you find a lockbox, or a locked chest of some kind. You don't have the key so you cannot know what's inside, all you can know is that it's either in a state of emptiness, or not. It is... "possibly empty". –  MattDavey Mar 8 '11 at 9:12
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Container isn't an adjective but it describes this concept perfectly well.

share|improve this answer
1  
I was going to comment that container doesn't mean something that is never empty. I am not sure if the OP would accept container, but that seems the better word that can be used. –  kiamlaluno Mar 7 '11 at 16:34
1  
I agree. A container is something that can be empty, partially filled, or full. If it can't have those properties, it doesn't qualify as a container. –  Robusto Mar 7 '11 at 16:38
    
I agree this word does encapsulate the concept, but my problem with it is that it has extra implications that aren't relevent for my context (see my comment in OP). –  MattDavey Mar 8 '11 at 9:16
    
I think you'd have to explicitly say one way or the other for a reader to assume a container is full or empty. To not say leaves it to question. Even if we're talking about a lockbox in the example you provided, if the reader assumes there's some sort of treasure inside is completely fault of the reader as you didn't specify one way or the other. I stand by container as an answer. –  Neil Mar 8 '11 at 13:02
    
I think it's as good as we're going to get (marked as answer). As I said "container" does encapsulate the concept, more by convention and implicit understanding of what a container "is". But what is the property of a container that makes us realise it could be empty? The search for a better word continues :) –  MattDavey Mar 8 '11 at 16:44
show 1 more comment

Decantable, depletable, or exhaustible? Perhaps you can provide some context?

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.