English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I keep hearing people use the word sans in place of without which causes me to cringe. Can sans really be used as a drop-in replacement?


"I prefer cheeseburgers sans pickles."

"I went to the store sans my brother."

"I typed my essay sans using a sans serif font."

share|improve this question
How typical of Americans (and also other Anglo-Saxons) to try to rub out the roots of their language. Driven by blind collonial pride sans logic. The funniest thing is that native english speakers have such a hard time pronouncing any non-english name or word. Sans reason. – Chris Aug 15 '12 at 5:07
@Chris: People usually do not consciously engage in language extermination. It generally stems from a natural process of language evolution. The usage of sans has simply died out (although I've seen it used by non-native English speakers). – Jesse Good Apr 25 '13 at 21:00
up vote 10 down vote accepted

Well, Merriam-Webster considers sans a word (meaning without). Sans-serif is definitely correct; that is simply what sans-serif fonts are called. Shakespeare used it like this:

My love for thee is sound, sans crack or flaw.

I think it's safe to assume that if Merriam-Webster and Shakespeare use it, it's probably a safe word to use; the words that weren't words when Shakespeare used them became words anyways.

As for how much one should use the word, I would suggest limiting its use, despite the fact that it may be legitimate; using it could make you sound silly (awkward wording sounds silly, IMO) or pretentious.

share|improve this answer
I realize sans is a word, but to what extent can it be used? – Pubby Nov 18 '11 at 4:48
@Pubby I think it can be used to the extent mentioned in your question, but one should probably limit his/her usage of the word; without is more recognizable, and sounds better overall. – user11550 Nov 18 '11 at 4:51
M-W and Shakespeare notwithstanding, I think it's normally only used somewhat facetiously, often with a degree of exaggerated enunciation to make sure the "mock-classy foreign word" is recognised. Also, it's mainly restricted to contexts where by default whatever is missing/unwanted would normally be present. Particularly food items, since it's associated with French haute cuisine. – FumbleFingers Nov 18 '11 at 5:03
@FumbleFingers Your comment is the most pertinent answer, as this is a question of usage, rather than etymology, meaning, or whatever else. – z7sg Ѫ Nov 18 '11 at 10:30
@Mahnax, Is Shakespeare that good? – Pacerier Jan 18 '14 at 7:43

I limit myself to using it as a de facto prefix and in no other way. That is, to mean the antithesis of what immediately follows as otherwise generally understood. Sans serif as opposed to the more common Roman font; sans soda because going with soda is more common...

@jwpat7: Which is probably why "sans my brother" sounds clumsy.

share|improve this answer
Just a correction on the "Roman font" -- there's no such thing, except as a typeface variant: "Roman" means "upright" (as opposed to italic or oblique variants of a typeface). A "serif" typeface has the little serifs at the end of strokes, particularly to establish a text baseline and make reading easier (think Times-Roman). "Sans-serif" typefaces lack these decorations (think Arial). – Phil Perry Jun 19 '14 at 17:58

The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as archaic.

share|improve this answer
Doesn't archaic mean "no longer in use"? Or, deprecated? As we can see, the word is still indeed used. – Kris Nov 18 '11 at 9:48
@Kris archaic: "1. Very old or old-fashioned. 2. No longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor." – Hugo Nov 18 '11 at 9:54
@Kris: When a word is no longer in use the OED describes it as ‘obsolete’. In the case of ‘sans’, the full description is ‘Now archaic (chiefly with reminiscence of Shakespeare), jocular, and Heraldry.’ – Barrie England Nov 18 '11 at 10:08
The online calls it "literary or humorous" – Unreason Nov 18 '11 at 11:38

As others said, sans does mean without. However, in my experience it is used only to modify a noun, not a verb phrase. So your "sans using" example feels very wrong to me, but "sans serif", "sans pickles", etc are fine. (Another answer commented on the oddness of "sans my brother", though "sans Dave" feels more natural.)

So sans is best used with an unmodified noun, might be ok with a modified noun ("my brother") but will sound "off", and is not advised with verbs.

share|improve this answer

Your three examples of use are all correct, although the "my brother" one is clumsy and I'd only expect to hear that example with a name; e.g. "I went to the store sans Billy."

Another Shakespeare example: "Last scene of all /.../ Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."

A Horace Walpole example, regarding Frederick the Great:

Have you seen the works of the philosopher of Sans Souci, or rather, of the man who is no philosopher, and who has more Souci than any man now in Europe? How contemptible they are!

[As in ohne-sorgen-polka notes, Sans Souci can translate as Without worry, or more hiply as no sweat, "Ohne Sorge" being the German for Sans Souci.]

share|improve this answer

"sans" might come from French: "sans" is the French word that exactly means "without".

For instance:

  • "J'y suis allé sans mon frère" is translated into "I went there without my brother"
  • "Soda sans glace" is "Soda, no ice"
  • "sans importance" is "not important"
  • "sans plomb" is "unleaded"

For these reasons, I suspect "sans" would be a little more higher language, less common, and sounding old-fashioned compared to "without"/"-less/"no"/"free"

share|improve this answer
'Sans' entered the language long before the nineteenth century and long, even, before Shakespeare. – Barrie England Nov 18 '11 at 9:25
@BarrieEngland You are right, I removed this incorrect dating. Most likely, they have the same etymology, though. "sans" comes from "sinis", which is barbarian latin for "sine" – rds Nov 18 '11 at 9:34
I think this is the best answer here so far. The "original" origin is a bit irrelevant, since it only (just) survives in English because it's still current in French. Which in some ways makes it "modern pseudo-cosmopolitan" at the same time as being archaic. Feel free to copy/reword anything from my comment to @Mahnax's answer, if you want this to be ELU's enduring showcase definition for modern usage. – FumbleFingers Nov 18 '11 at 13:42
While sans does translate to without, its use in English should be very limited (to established uses such as sans-serif). Most of the examples given in this discussion sound very pretentious or faux-cosmopolitan -- people straining to sound sophisticated. – Phil Perry Jun 19 '14 at 17:53

protected by tchrist Feb 22 '15 at 0:30

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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