"without a trace" vs "without trace"

Question

"without a trace" vs "without trace"

Both 'without a trace' and 'without trace' are correct phrases, but they are used in different contexts. 'Without a trace' is a common idiom meaning completely disappearing or leaving no evidence behind. On the other hand, 'without trace' is less common and is used in a more literal sense, such as 'the water evaporated without trace.'

Last Updated: March 25, 2024

This phrase is an idiom that means completely disappearing or leaving no evidence behind. It is often used in the context of someone or something vanishing mysteriously.

Examples:

The thief disappeared without a trace.
The missing plane was never found without a trace.
She erased all evidence of her presence without a trace.
The treasure vanished without a trace.
The ghostly figure faded away without a trace.

Alternatives:

vanished completely
disappeared mysteriously
left no evidence behind
without leaving a trace
without a sign

This phrase is used in a more literal sense to indicate that something has disappeared or dissipated completely without leaving any evidence or remnants.

Examples:

The snow melted without trace.
The footprints were washed away without trace.
The scent of the flowers vanished without trace.
The ink on the paper disappeared without trace.
The memories faded away without trace.

Alternatives:

vanished without a trace
disappeared without a trace
dissipated completely
without leaving any evidence
without a sign of its existence

Answer 1

without a trace

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

Answer 2

without trace

This phrase is correct but less common in English.

"without a trace" vs "without trace"

without a trace

without trace

Related Comparisons