no trace

USAGE SUMMARY

"no trace" is correct and usable in written English.
It is used to indicate that there is no evidence or proof of something. For example, "The police searched the house but there was no trace of the stolen goods."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

No trace of them.

The New Yorker

No trace remains.

The New York Times

No trace of stability.

The Guardian

No trace, no explanation.

The Guardian

The movie offers no trace.

The New Yorker

Most people leave no trace.

The Economist

"Leave no trace," is another.

Independent

Of sea birds no trace.

The New Yorker

No trace of it remains.

The Guardian - Books

No trace of that now.

The New Yorker

The shell leaves virtually no trace.

The New York Times - Food

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "no trace" to clearly indicate the absence of something, whether physical evidence, emotion, or a past event. For example, "After the storm, there was "no trace" of the old pier."

Common error

Avoid using "no trace" when you actually mean there is a small amount or indication of something. "No trace" signifies complete absence; using it otherwise will mislead the reader.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "no trace" functions as an existential quantifier expressing complete absence. It's used to negate the existence of something, whether physical evidence, an emotion, or any kind of perceptible sign. As Ludwig AI confirms, the phrase is grammatically sound and frequently encountered.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

75%

Academia

15%

Science

5%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

2%

Formal & Business

2%

Wiki

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "no trace" is a common and grammatically correct phrase used to indicate a complete absence of something. As Ludwig AI confirms, this phrase is widely used across various domains, especially in News & Media and Academic contexts. When using "no trace", ensure that you intend to convey a total lack of evidence or indication. Be mindful of the context to avoid misusing it in situations where there is some, however minimal, evidence of something. Alternative phrases like "not a sign" or "no evidence" can also be used depending on the nuance you wish to convey. Overall, "no trace" is a reliable and clear way to express the absence of something in various forms of communication.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

not a sign

Replaces "trace" with "sign", focusing on the lack of any indication.

no indication

Similar to "not a sign", but slightly more formal.

no evidence

Replaces "trace" with the more explicit term "evidence".

nothing to be found

Emphasizes the unsuccessful search or lack of discovery.

vanished without a trace

Focuses on the disappearance aspect, implying a complete absence.

not a shred

Implies that there is not even the smallest bit of something to be found.

entirely absent

Highlights the complete lack of presence.

completely gone

Focuses on the state of being missing or absent.

left no mark

Emphasizes the absence of any lasting effect or impression.

failed to register

Highlights an absence of record or acknowledgment.

FAQs

What does "no trace" mean?

"No trace" means there is absolutely no sign, evidence, or indication of something's existence or presence.

How can I use "no trace" in a sentence?

You can use "no trace" to describe the absence of something. For example, "The detective found "no trace" of the suspect at the scene."

What are some alternatives to saying "no trace"?

Alternatives include "not a sign", "no indication", or "no evidence", depending on the context.

Is it grammatically correct to say "no trace of"?

Yes, it is grammatically correct to say "no trace of". It is commonly followed by the thing that is absent, such as "no trace of the missing jewels".