What are the differences between the two sentences below:
There is no rule.
There isn't rule.
The second should be
Rules are countable, so the singular "rule" needs an article or counter of some sort. In the first sentence, "no" counts the number of rules present. In the second "is not" doesn't count, so adding "a" is appropriate.
EDIT: beyond that correction, the two sentences have the same basic meaning. "There is no rule" is more emphatic, but both can be quite strong depending on how they are spoken.
The second sentence isn't valid. "Isn't" is a contraction of "is not". You could say the following:
Your question: Are there any differences of the two sentences below:
Answer: Indeed, there are.
Sentence 2. uses not in place of the no in sentence 1. More seriously, sentence 1. means there are no rules in place. Here, no is adjective modifying rule. Hence, no rule = absence of rules/a rule. Sentence 2., as it stands, could certainly be made sense of, but it is ungrammatical. Here, not is an adverb that implies the negative and placing a noun such as rule right after it does not work. Others have suggested:
I would also like to add this option:
In my opinion, this is the more commonly used form. Or, even better,
Note that not can also be used in place of an adverbial clause of negation:
As Jimi says, the second can be made sense of, and it's even (IMPSO) grammatical. To wit:
Not something I'd say, but I think it's correct.
Simply because it is grammatically wrong. There isn't = There is NOT There is no = There is NO
So the mistake here is thinking that "isn't " means= "is no" There is no rule that says....
There isn't a rule that says.... There is not a rule that says....
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?