has been no mention of vs. hasn't been mentioned anything about

[shootingstar]

Up to this chapter, there isn't mentioned anything about has been no mention of postage stamps or stamp collection.

This is a correction of the thread . . . raking in the stamps. My question now is, can I say . . . there hasn't been mentioned anything about 'postage stamps' or 'stamp collection' instead of. . . there has been no mention of 'postage stamps' or 'stamp collection' ?

 

[5jj]

It's not natural.

 

[shootingstar]

So I can say it and every Englishman and Englishwoman understands what I'm saying, right?

 

[5jj]

What would be the point?

 

[emsr2d2]

Up to this chapter, there isn't mentioned anything about has been no mention of postage stamps or stamp collection.

This is a correction of the thread . . . raking in the stamps. My question now is, can I say . . . there hasn't been mentioned anything about 'postage stamps' or 'stamp collection' instead of. . . there has been no mention of 'postage stamps' or 'stamp collection' ?

No. If that had been a possible alternative, I'd have given it in my original correction in the other thread.
If you want to give a negative tone to the sentence, you could use "Up to this chapter, the author hasn't made any mention of ...".

 

[jutfrank]

question now is, can I say . . . there hasn't been mentioned anything about 'postage stamps'

It's sounds natural enough to me.

 

[5jj]

Google book (American) corpora have over 600 citations for 'T/there has been no mention of'. There are none for 'T/there hasn't been mentioned anything'.

 

[tzfujimino]

1. There's been nothing mentioned about ...
2. There hasn't been anything mentioned about ...

I think these two are grammatical.
I'm not sure if they're natural or not, though.

 

[5jj]

They are OK.