anything - nothing

[joeoct]

Hi,

- ...but he couldn't hear anything.
... but he could hear nothing.
I think the second sentence is more natural - does that mean that the first one is not suitable?

Thanks,
Joe

[Leandro-Z]

Both are fine. However, I would rather use the first one. It's just a matter of custom and preferences. Either you use the first expression or the second one, it's okay!

[Mar Rojo]

I'd say the second one is more common in writing.

[joeoct]

Mar Rojo, that's the fact - I've seen it used many times in the literature.

[Mar Rojo]

And there's:

He couldn't hear a thing.
He could hear not one thing.

[TheParser]

Hi,

- ...but he couldn't hear anything.
... but he could hear nothing.
I think the second sentence is more natural - does that mean that the first one is not suitable?

Thanks,
Joe

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Joe:


(1) All the other posters have given us great answers.

(2) I just wanted to say that many books agree with the Longman

English Grammar that states:

The two kinds of negatives have the same meaning, though no is

generally more emphatic than not ... any.

(3) So I guess that "He could hear nothing" is "stronger" than

"He could not hear anything."

(4) For example:

Mrs. Smith: Would you like anything to drink?

Tom (who is upset because his girlfriend has left him): No, thanks.

Mrs. Smith: Are you sure?

Tom: Yes. I do not want anything, thank you.

Mrs. Smith: The tea is delicious. Can I get you a cup?

Tom: Are you deaf!!! I said that I want nothing!!! Leave me alone.


Sincerely,


James

[joeoct]

TheParser, thanks once again.
Maybe you are not a teacher, but your replies seem very learned.