did not harm

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "did not harm" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate that an action or event did not cause damage or injury to someone or something. Example: "The new policy was implemented, and it did not harm the company's reputation."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

She did not harm anyone.

The New York Times

The radio waves did not harm exposed cells.

MIT Technology Review

Dr. Anderson said the treatment did not harm the cow.

The New York Times - Health

When the flames did not harm her, she was beheaded.

Britannica

Buddha was only peaceful and did not harm animals.

The New Yorker

The results showed that the injection did not harm cell viability.

Materials Science and Engineering: C

The device operated at a safe current and did not harm any of our test subjects.

Cornell University

For baseball, which is a more individualistic sport, high levels of talent did not harm performance.

Cornell University

It substantially lowered LDL, triglycerides, and blood pressure, and did not harm HDL.

Harvard University

Bayer rejected the allegations last night, insisting that its products did not harm bees.

Independent

"By sheer luck, last week's accident did not harm any passengers or Metro employees.

The Washington Post

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "did not harm" when you want to emphasize the absence of negative effects or damage resulting from a specific action or event. It's particularly useful when clarifying potential concerns.

Common error

Avoid using "did not harm" excessively in passive constructions. Instead of "The experiment did not harm the patients," consider "The experiment ensured patient safety" for a more direct and active voice.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "did not harm" functions as a predicate in a sentence, indicating the absence of a negative action or effect. It is typically used to assert that someone or something did not cause injury, damage, or any other form of detriment. Ludwig AI confirms its correctness and usability.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

40%

Academia

30%

Science

20%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

3%

Wiki

5%

Formal & Business

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "did not harm" is a versatile and grammatically sound expression used to convey the absence of negative effects. As Ludwig AI confirms, its correctness and wide applicability across diverse contexts—including news, academia, and science—make it a valuable asset in both formal and informal communication. When writing, consider the subtle differences in nuance between "did not harm" and alternatives like "did not damage" or "caused no injury" to ensure the most precise expression of your intended meaning. Be mindful of overusing it in passive constructions and aim for a more active voice when appropriate. This phrase is common and understandable in many situations.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

did not damage

Highlights the absence of physical impairment or degradation.

did not hurt

A more direct and simple way of saying that no pain or injury was inflicted.

caused no injury

Focuses on the absence of physical harm or damage.

had no adverse effect

Emphasizes the lack of negative consequences or impact.

produced no ill effects

Indicates that there were no negative outcomes or consequences.

left unscathed

Implies that something or someone was untouched and undamaged by an event.

didn't impair

Specifies that there was no reduction in quality or effectiveness.

was without detriment

Suggests that something occurred without causing any loss or harm.

did not wound

Implies the absence of emotional or physical injury.

did not prejudice

Focuses on the absence of bias or unfair influence.

FAQs

How can I rephrase "did not harm" in formal writing?

In formal contexts, consider using alternatives like "caused no injury", "had no adverse effect", or "was without detriment" to maintain a professional tone.

What's the difference between "did not harm" and "did not damage"?

"Did not harm" generally refers to preventing injury or negative impact on living beings, while "did not damage" typically refers to preventing physical impairment or degradation of objects or structures. However, they can sometimes be used interchangeably depending on the context.

Is it correct to say "done no harm" instead of "did not harm"?

While "done no harm" is grammatically correct, "did not harm" is generally more common and versatile. "Done no harm" often appears in the context of medical ethics or philosophical discussions.

When is it more appropriate to use "did not hurt" versus "did not harm"?

"Did not hurt" is often used in informal contexts to indicate the absence of physical pain or emotional distress, whereas "did not harm" is more broadly applicable to indicate the absence of any kind of negative impact, whether physical, emotional, or otherwise.