they were without

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "they were without" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate a lack of something or absence of a particular item or quality. Example: "During the storm, they were without power for several days."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Sports

Books

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

They were without foundation.

The New Yorker

They were without three regulars.

The New York Times - Sports

Crucially, they were without firepower.

The New York Times - Books

They were, without exception, dirty wars.

The New York Times

And they were without an escape hatch.

The New York Times

They were without Kim Johnsson, who has a swollen eye.

The New York Times - Sports

They were without Theo Fleury, out with a sore shoulder.

The New York Times - Sports

Panbanisha knew where they were without seeing them.

The New York Times - Science

They were without food, fuel and, worst of all, tobacco.

The New York Times - Books

We buried them where they were without proper prayers".

The New York Times

They were, without doubt, the leading filthmeisters of their time.

Independent

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "they were without", ensure the context clearly identifies who "they" refers to and what they lacked. This avoids ambiguity and enhances clarity.

Common error

Avoid using "they were without" if the subject "they" is unclear or ambiguous. Always ensure the reader knows exactly who or what "they" represents in your sentence to prevent confusion.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "they were without" functions as a descriptive phrase, indicating the absence or lack of something. Ludwig examples show it used to describe missing resources, personnel, or qualities.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

59%

Sports

18%

Books

8%

Less common in

Science

6%

Wiki

5%

Formal & Business

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "they were without" is a grammatically sound and frequently used construction to denote the absence of something. Ludwig examples confirm its prevalence across various contexts, particularly in News & Media and Sports. It serves to describe situations where a group or entity lacks a specific resource, quality, or personnel. Although it can be used in formal writing, it is considered a neutral construction and does not contradict typical English grammar rules. Ludwig AI confirms that the phrase is grammatically correct and usable in written English.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

they lacked

Emphasizes a deficiency or absence of something necessary.

they didn't have

A more direct and simple way of stating the absence of something.

they had no

Similar to "they didn't have" but can sound slightly more formal.

they were devoid of

More formal, suggesting a complete absence of something, often an abstract quality.

they were missing

Indicates that something is absent or has been lost.

they were short of

Suggests a deficiency, especially in quantity or supply.

they were deprived of

Implies that something essential has been taken away or withheld.

they had run out of

Indicates that a supply has been completely exhausted.

they couldn't access

Focuses on the inability to obtain or use something.

they were unable to obtain

More formal version highlighting the lack of ability to acquire something.

FAQs

How can I use "they were without" in a sentence?

Use "they were without" to indicate the absence of something. For example, "They were without power during the storm" or "They were without food for three days".

What are some alternatives to "they were without"?

Alternatives include phrases like "they lacked", "they didn't have", or "they had no", depending on the specific context.

Is it correct to say "they were without"?

Yes, "they were without" is a grammatically correct and commonly used phrase to indicate a lack of something.

What's the difference between "they were without" and "they lacked"?

"They were without" and "they lacked" are very similar. "They lacked" might sound slightly more formal or concise in some contexts, but they are largely interchangeable.