Given something in a state of not having been validated or invalidated, its validness is, as yet, unknown. Can it be said to be unvalidated? If not, what is the proper term?

  • 2
    "Not validated", plain and simple. No need to invent a confusing single-word term. "Not" has all the negativity of "un-", but none of the ambiguity. – RegDwigнt Feb 20 '12 at 12:35
  • I agree with @RegDwightΒВB that the ambiguity is best avoided. Good question, though. – shinyspoongod Jun 19 '12 at 8:59

Those who say unvalidated (never having been validated) is "not a word" are simply being prescriptive, outdated, and pedantic. It's been used increasingly over the past century (the chart represents a total of 34,000 instances in print).

enter image description here

I don't see any problem at all with the word, which is clearly distinguishable from invalidated (having been been checked and failed validation). If OP wishes to avoid unfounded allegations of illiteracy though, he might wish to consider unverified as a less contentious alternative.

  • Thanks very much for the input. Genuinely very useful and also constructive. – Rory Becker Feb 20 '12 at 13:46

On the one hand, I'd say that "unvalidated" fills your described need just fine.

On the other hand, in the interest of avoiding potential auditory or visual confusion between "invalidated" and "unvalidated", I'd suggest going with "non-validated" or "not yet validated".


Either 'not validated' or 'not yet validated' (with a negative and positive connotation, respectively. There's no reason to make everything into a single word - we not German are speaking.


Unvalidated meaning "not yet validated" is perfectly OK to use if you ask me, and many people do.

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