Learn English – semantic difference between ‘without’ and ‘‑less’

prepositionssemanticssuffixes

I am trying to decide whether the sentences

[X] argues [Y]’s death to be without sin

and

[X] argues [Y]’s death to be sinless

actually carry the same meaning. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘sinless’ as:

sinless

ADJECTIVE
Free from sin.

‘the sinless life of Christ’

The same dictionary defines the prepositional use of ‘without’ as:

without

PREPOSITION

  1. In the absence of.
    1. Not having the use or benefit of.
    2. [often with verbal noun] In circumstances in which the action mentioned does not happen.
  2. archaic, literary Outside.

To me, there seems to be slightly different nuances to them. Checking the suffix itself, it is defined as:

-less

SUFFIX

  1. (forming adjectives and adverbs from nouns) not having; free from.
  2. (forming adjectives and adverbs from verbs) not affected by or not carrying out the action of the verb.

I find it hard to pinpoint what exactly the difference between these two is. Are they really the same; or is the nuance which I intuitively feel there to be, substantiated?

Best Answer

When someone creates an adjective from a noun by adding the suffix "-less" they are not simply creating an alternative to "without X": they are implying the existence of a class, attribute, or quality that has its own significance.

For instance, if we talk about ‘Jones, a peasant who does not possess land’, we are discussing Jones' own situation:

Jones does not own land! He probably needs to pay rent or work for other people.

In contrast, if we talk about ‘Jones, a landless peasant’, we are placing him in a particular category:

Jones is a landless peasant! He has the characteristics and probably the sympathies of the class to which he belongs.

Another way in which the adjectival form can be used is to imply that the quality is deeper, longer-lasting, or more substantial. For instance, ‘[X] is clueless’ would be an offensive remark about the intelligence of [X], while ‘[X] doesn't have a clue’ probably just means that [X] is presently unaware of something.

We can see both of these factors in the distinction between ‘without guilt’ and ‘guiltless’. Saying that someone is ‘without guilt’ is a bit equivocal - it can describe someone who should not be blamed, and it can also describe someone who may be blameworthy but simply does not feel guilty. But if we describe someone as ‘guiltless’ we are asserting something more substantial: it isn't just that blaming them would be incorrect; it would be wrong. That is, they should not be blamed; they cannot be blamed; no guilt attaches to them.

In the example you use, arguing that ‘[Y]’s death was sinless’ may imply some association or continuity between [Y]’s death and other things that are sinless. [X] could make the same connections when claiming that ‘[Y]’s death was without sin’, but they would need to be made explicitly. However, even if [X] would not admit the existence of other sinless deaths, the adjectival form ‘sinless’ implies that [Y]’s death wasn't accidentally or coincidentally without sin: its sinlessness was significant and distinctive.

Related Topic