When it comes to losing weight, a quick fix to would be nice, but we know there’s no such [a] thing.
(Aussie 7 News)

It sounds like there isn’t ‘a’ in the news. So I wonder if it be right when there is no ‘a’ after ‘such.’ Would it be okay?


This is easy to stumble over because the construction without a negative, such a thing, is anomalous.

Any word you might substitute for such—a word which plays the same syntactic role, such as similar or like or different or otherfollows the article: a similar thing, a like thing, a different thing, another thing. And historically, in fact, a such thing alternated freely with such a thing before the language decided it preferred the such a construction about 1400.

Once you realize that the underlying sense is a such, the proper negative becomes clear: no replaces a as the determiner, and reverts to its normal position: no similar thing, no like thing, no different thing, no other thing—and no such thing.

But your instinct is shared by many native speakers. The construction such a thing is so firmly fixed on people's tongues that you will frequently hear people say no such a thing. And at least in my own native dialect the struggle to make syntactic sense of the construction results in no such of a thing.

  • Thanks for your excellent answer. Does 1400 means 1400 A.D.? – RobertH Jun 30 '20 at 8:10
  • @RobertH Yes it does. – StoneyB on hiatus Jul 1 '20 at 12:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.