Are these two sentences interchangeable?

There is nothing wrong with that you are fat.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that you are fat.


In English, when you use nothing wrong with, you follow it with a noun. This noun can be an object or a gerund (a form of a verb that acts like a noun). Look at the following two sentences.

There is nothing wrong with the food. (object)

There is nothing wrong with eating the food. (gerund)

They both mean two different things:

  • The sentence with the object (food) means there are no problems with the food, or, quite simply, the food isn't bad.
  • The sentence with the gerund (eating) means there is no problem with the action of eating the food, or, quite simply, the action of eating the food isn't bad.

Using this information, we examine the first sentence.

There is nothing wrong with that you are fat.

This is incorrect because that, in this case, is a conjunction and not a noun.

The word that can also act like a pronoun, however, and if you were to just say

There is nothing wrong with that.

you would be correct, because it is referring to an unknown thing (object/action/state).

If you want to fix this sentence, you could say

There is nothing wrong with fatness. (I prefer obesity)

There is nothing wrong with being fat.

The second sentence is correct because it is referring to the noun fact.

One thing I would mention is that you shouldn't use it in direct conversation with somebody else for two reasons:

  1. It's always good to be courteous, and talking about the obesity of someone doesn't make them happy.
  2. Stating that their obesity is a fact may not make them too happy either.

To answer your question: are the sentences interchangeable?

Most definitely not.

The first sentence is also incorrect, so don't use it.

  • In this topic I very recently opened (ell.stackexchange.com/questions/170670/…), Andrew told me that I could use "that" after "with". Do you agree with him? If you do, why can't I use "that" here while I can use it there? Also, are you a native English speaker? Just wondering. :) Jun 29 '18 at 1:16
  • @FireandIce Your only problem is that you are adding subordinate clauses to the word that (which, as I said, is fine by itself in this case) which is making your sentence incorrect. I am a native speaker, and as such I can quickly think of many sentences that go against this "rule" (from what I see, that's not what he said), such as "He is going to the park with that you are fat".
    – Kman3
    Jun 29 '18 at 1:38
  • Thanks again. So you say I can't say "that" after "with" in those sentences I gave on that page either? Jun 29 '18 at 1:44
  • @FireandIce That takes a whole other answer, something that was already given by others. Don't forget: you asked about using it with nothing wrong with, not with the sentences you made in another post. People answering your question only use what you've given us in the question, not what you've stated in other questions (unless you mention that in your question).
    – Kman3
    Jun 29 '18 at 1:46
  • 1
    @FireandIce I'm trying to help you, but you're extrapolating in a way that prompts you to write another question based on this topic. All I will say is this: they are different because do with is a phrasal verb. Nothing wrong with means "having no problems". Don't assume that they're the same because they have with, because they aren't. Anyway, if that didn't answer your question, please make a question based on the difference between using that with to do with and that with nothing wrong with.
    – Kman3
    Jun 29 '18 at 1:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .