After a verb of attribution (said, stated, announced, disclosed), the word “that” often can be omitted with no loss of meaning.

I have checked the Dictionary

But I don't think I could found an appropriate definition to explain the word "with" in this sentence.

  • 1
    With no loss = without any loss.
    – Khan
    Nov 14, 2015 at 13:52
  • You have chosen an answer that contains incorrect information. You should wait at least twenty-four hours for more answers. But since you have chosen an answer, you will less likely get more answers
    – user20792
    Nov 14, 2015 at 15:21

1 Answer 1


Fragment "with no loss of meaning" is essentially the same as "without loss of meaning". One can employ such a substitution if that's easier for one to comprehend.

In the phrase "can be omitted with no loss" the preposition "with" establishes the causal relationship between the verb "omitted" and the noun phrase "no loss". Thus the overall explanation of

... the word “that” often can be omitted with no loss of meaning.

is that the omission (of the word "that") often causes no loss of meaning, i.e. the meaning often stays the same even if the word "that" is omitted.

  • With most often indicates a causal relationship when it can be replaced with because of. There is no causal relationship implied by 'with' in the sentence at hand.
    – user20792
    Nov 14, 2015 at 14:59
  • Consider providing your own answer before downvoting. The choice of the "accepted" answer can be made again, I've seen it done. Nov 14, 2015 at 15:19
  • BTW, saying something is wrong does not make it wrong, no matter how much you want it. You need to prove it. Nov 14, 2015 at 15:20
  • If you want to invent a relationship, you could just as well say resultative.
    – user20792
    Nov 14, 2015 at 15:24
  • And the difference is...? Nov 14, 2015 at 15:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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