They destroyed the building without [leaving] a trace.

[navi tasan]

1) They destroyed the building without a trace.

I think that means they destroyed it without there remaining a trace of the building. However the way 'without' is used in that sentence seems a bit strange to me.

Could the sentence mean not what I think that they destroyed the building without their remaining a trace of their act (without leaving a trace)?

I don't seem to find a meaning for 'without' in the dictionary that corresponds to the usage we see in #1. I suppose I am missing something.

I went there without a shirt.
I went there without fear.
etc.

In all these cases it seems that the subject does not have something while carrying out the act that is mentioned.

I wouldn't have a problem with 'without leaving a trace'.

Could 'without a trace' be elliptical for 'without leaving a trace'?

 

[emsr2d2]

As always, we need to know where you found the original sentence. Please cite the source and the author. After that, we can help you.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Emsr2e2,

I didn't think the sentence was unusual. I made it up myself.

You can see a similar sentence here:

American Journal of Physics

www.google.com

I made up that sentence after seeing this:

I think the structure is the same as my sentence.

 

[emsr2d2]

I didn't think the sentence was unusual. I made it up myself.

It wasn't unusual. When people post a sentence and say what they think it means, that's usually because they didn't write it themselves. Just remember to make it clear that you wrote something yourself to avoid this question in future.

 

[jutfrank]

You've used 'without a trace' wrong, which raises a problem for interpretation. It's no good making up poorly expressed artificial sentences and then asking us about the meaning unless your goal is to try to get to the underlying mechanics of the semantics, which is what I assume you're doing again with this question. With a great deal of your questions, you seem to want to push the language to the point of failure in order to understand something deeper about the relation between structure and meaning. I think that's a reasonable approach, but it does cause issues for some members who understandably want to help you express a clear thought in a clear way, so I think you should make your approach known in future.

In any normal sentence with 'without a trace', the phrase relates to the subject of the verb, which is They, not the object, which is the building, so the best interpretation given the sentence structure is that it is they who went undetected in their act of destroying the building. However, as I think you know, that doesn't sit well with the actual words that you've used, namely the verb destroyed. If you changed destroyed to, say, left, there would be no conflict.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you both very much,

Jutfrank, your reply is, as usual, wonderful.

You are correct. I like to say that I like to explore the Twilight Zone of the English language.

So, would you consider the following sentence correct?

2) They committed a crime without a trace.

If I've understood your reply correctly, then #2 must be correct.

 

[jutfrank]

I like to say that I like to explore the Twilight Zone of the English language.

Yes, that's fine. Me too. That's the kind of approach that a linguist might take as oppsosed to a learner of the language, which is who we usually deal with. My only point is really that I'd ask you to make it clear that you're not particularly interested in expressing ideas with clarity and precision, but rather that you're interested in something much deeper to do with the relation between structure and meaning.

So, would you consider the following sentence correct?

It fully depends on what you mean by 'correct', Navi, and honestly I wince every time I see you asking this question. If you want to know if something is grammatical, then use that word. The notion of 'correctness' in language is very unclear and people will understand completely different things by it, even we teachers. I would request that you never ask whether something is 'correct'. Ask instead whether a sentence is grammatical, or whether it makes good sense, or whether it sounds natural to a particular speech group or in a particular context, or whether there's any structural ambiguity, or whether it's elegantly or economically expressed, but please don't ask whether a sentence is 'correct' because we, or at least I, usually have little idea of what you really want to know.

 

[Skrej]

1) They destroyed the building without a trace.

I would interpret that as meaning they destroyed the building without leaving any evidence of their action (i.e. who was responsible), versus leaving any evidence of the building itself.

Otherwise, how would one know the building was destroyed if there was no evidence of the destruction?

Even assuming one could somehow magically snap one's fingers and make the building completely disappear instantaneously without any rubble left behind, the empty spot would be still be evidence of its removal.

However, if one was careful enough, one might be able to destroy the building without leaving any clues of who performed the destruction. It's certainly less likely, but maybe even remove any evidence of how it was destroyed.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank and Skrej,

I see your point Jutfrank and I apologize for the confusion I create. Old habits die hard. I have to try to remember to ask whether a sentence is grammatical and whether it has the meaning I think it has.

I will try to keep that in mind.

Thanks again,

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank and Skrej.

I see your point, Jutfrank, and I apologize for the confusion I create. Old habits die hard. I have to try to remember to ask whether a sentence is grammatical and whether it has the meaning I think it has.

I will try to keep that in mind.

Thanks again.

Note my corrections to your punctuation above. Also, since you keep mentioning "natural" (and I understand what you mean by that), using "have the meaning" isn't very natural amongst BrE speakers at least. We have the perfectly good verb "[to] mean".

I'll try to remember to ask if a sentence means what I think it does/means.

 

[Annabel Lee]

1) They destroyed the building without a trace.

I think that means they destroyed it without there remaining a trace of the building.

What comes to my mind when I read (1) is that "trace" must be being used in some sense that I am not familiar with.

The sentence seems to me to mean, "They did not use a trace to destroy the building."

It has the same structure as sentences like "They started the fire without a match," "They chopped the wood without an axe."

But I am pretty sure no dictionary would say that "trace" can mean something like "an instrument of destruction."

 

[jutfrank]

Structurally, you could also parse it where the building without a trace is a specifying noun phrase functioning as direct object of destroyed. The particular building that they destroyed was the one that was lacking a 'trace'. Similarly:

He shot the man without a gun.