[General] The hospital has no vacant beds.

Status
Not open for further replies.

kompstar

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
1. The hospital has no vacant beds.
2. There are no vacant beds in the hospital.

Are the sentences above correct and natural. Do they have the same meaning?
 
Yes, yes, and yes.
 
I wonder If I said:

1. The hospital has no free beds.
2. There are no free beds in the hospital.

Would the sentences be correct?
 
Without context, I'd guess that "free" meant "unoccupied" here. However, it can also mean "gratis, costing no money", and could mean that in this sentence.
 
So in such a case, is it[STRIKE]'s[/STRIKE] better to use "vacant", because the word is unequivocal?
See above. Questions always require subject-verb inversion.
 
Or "empty beds".
 
So in such a case, it's better to use "vacant", because the word is unequivocal?

If you are talking about a system that doesn't charge, then the meaning is clear. If not, then it is ambiguous.
 
Or "empty beds".

I never would have thought I could say "There are no empty beds in the hospital" instead of "There are no vacant beds in the hospital". Which of the sentences is more commonly used (with "empty" or "vacant")?
 
To be honest, in BrE, neither one would be necessary. If a spokesperson for a hospital said "We have no beds", it would be clear that they meant there were no beds available for new patients - all beds are currently occupied. For me, "empty" would be the more natural of the two if I had to choose one.

Note: This thread had been closed. I'm not sure why or by whom but I have reopened it as it is not yet concluded.
 
I'm not sure about Poland but the idea of free beds in a US hospital seems strange.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top