contained no

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "contained no" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate the absence of something within a particular context or item. Example: "The report contained no evidence to support the claims made by the witnesses."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

News & Media

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

The story contained no figures.

The Guardian

It contained no drinking holes.

The New Yorker

The speech contained no specifics.

The New York Times

My body contained no me.

The Guardian

His team, Auriemma said, contained "no feminists".

The New York Times - Sports

The paragraphs contained no real secrets.

The New York Times

The letters contained no single revelation.

The Guardian - Lifestyle

Turnbull's first day contained no such gaffe.

The Guardian

The directions contained no text whatsoever.

The New York Times

The object, Joe Boesenberg said, contained no nickel.

The New Yorker

The letters contained no obvious messages from known militant groups.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "contained no" to clearly and directly state the absence of a specific element within something, ensuring clarity and avoiding ambiguity. This construction is suitable for formal writing and technical descriptions.

Common error

Avoid using "contained no" in casual conversation or informal writing, as it may sound overly formal or stilted. Opt for simpler alternatives like "didn't have" or "lacked" to maintain a natural tone.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "contained no" functions as a declarative statement indicating the absence of a particular element within something. It's used to specify what something does not include. Ludwig AI confirms its common usage in various contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

40%

News & Media

35%

Wiki

10%

Less common in

Formal & Business

8%

Encyclopedias

4%

Reference

3%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "contained no" is a grammatically sound and frequently used expression to denote the absence of something within a given context. As Ludwig AI indicates, it's deemed correct and appears across diverse fields like science, news, and general information. While versatile, it's most suited for neutral to formal settings; simpler alternatives may be preferable for casual communication. Remember that clarity and precision are paramount when employing "contained no", ensuring the absence you're highlighting is unmistakable.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

did not include

Focuses on the absence of inclusion, emphasizing that something was specifically left out or not present.

was devoid of

Highlights a complete absence, suggesting that something is entirely lacking a particular element.

lacked any

Emphasizes the absence of even a small amount or trace of something.

held nothing

Implies that something did not possess or retain a particular element, focusing on the absence of possession.

did not have

A simpler and more direct way of stating the absence of something.

excluded

Emphasizes active omission; something was intentionally left out.

was without

Highlights the lack of something, often implying a deficiency or consequence because of that absence.

omitted any

Focuses on the intentional act of leaving something out.

failed to include

Highlights the failure to include something that might have been expected or necessary.

presented no

Emphasizes that something did not offer or show a particular element, often in the context of evidence or information.

FAQs

How can I rephrase "contained no" to sound more casual?

For a more casual tone, you can use phrases like "didn't have", "lacked", or "was without". The best choice depends on the specific context.

Is there a difference between saying "contained no" and "did not contain"?

While both phrases convey the same meaning, "contained no" is slightly more concise and often preferred in formal or technical writing. "Did not contain" may sound more natural in everyday conversation.

What are some situations where "contained no" is particularly appropriate?

"Contained no" is well-suited for technical reports, scientific papers, and formal documents where precise and unambiguous language is essential. For example, "The sample "contained no" traces of metal" is clear and direct.

Are there synonyms for "contained no" that emphasize a complete absence?

Yes, phrases like "was devoid of" or "lacked any" can emphasize a complete absence. For example, "The argument "was devoid of" logic" suggests a total lack of logical reasoning.