2

There has been an argument over whether one or both of these is correct and as well, which one is correct and technical, proper English. "There are no injuries" and "There are not any injuries".

  • In Beyond the Fringe Alan Bennett did a hilarious impression of Bertrand Russell splitting semantic hairs among "Do you have any apples in that basket?" "Do you have some apples in that basket?" and "Do you have apples in that basket?" This seems likewise hairsplitting. – Brian Donovan Aug 11 '15 at 20:50
  • 1
    Technically, they're both right. I prefer the first; the second is a little clunky. – ewormuth Aug 11 '15 at 21:26
  • 2
    No one says “There are not any injuries.” Everyone says “There aren’t any injuries.” – tchrist Aug 11 '15 at 22:33
  • Agree with tchrist. "There aren't any injuries" is the most common informal way to say it. Normally, formalizing something just consists of expanding out the contractions, but here we have the better-worded "There are no injuries." In rhetoric, I would say "There are no" is stronger than "There aren't any." – Tony Aug 22 '15 at 6:56
1

They are both grammatical. The first "There are no injuries", simply states that none have been found. The second "There are not any injuries" emphasizes the actual number "not any" meaning "not a single one", much in the same way one might say "There are no injuries. Truly, there are none." "none" meaning "not one".

That said in either case all phrases refer to zero injuries, so one might argue whether the distinction is real. Zero can after all not be more zero, same as dead can't be "deader".

Thus you may consider them equal in meaning and strength despite various emphases. Pick one that suits your mood and sense of melody and rhythm.

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.