does not destroy

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "does not destroy" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you want to indicate that something does not cause destruction or harm. Example: "The new policy does not destroy the existing framework but rather enhances it."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Cooking does not destroy residues.

The New Yorker

"It does not destroy the cells.

The New Yorker

Serializing a credential does not destroy it.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

"Cracking does not destroy," he said.

The New York Times

It does not destroy him, or leave him permanently traumatized.

The New Yorker

One was "Fire does not destroy evidence — it creates it".

The New Yorker

Cooking the shellfish does not destroy the toxins.

The Guardian

We prove that this modification does not destroy the convergence of the algorithm.

IFAC-PapersOnLine

However, the 35delG mutation does not destroy or create a restriction site.

Molecular Diagnosis

The Rights Plan does not destroy the assets of the corporation.

Harvard University

For this reason, Ms Farchakh says, Isis does not destroy all of Palmyra in one video.

Independent

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Consider stronger synonyms like "preserves", "maintains", or "safeguards" if you want to emphasize the positive action of keeping something intact rather than just stating the absence of destruction.

Common error

Avoid using "does not destroy" in overly passive constructions that obscure the actor. Instead of saying "The evidence does not destroy by the fire", specify who or what didn't destroy the evidence: "The fire "does not destroy" the evidence."

Linguistic Context

The phrase "does not destroy" functions as a predicate in a sentence, indicating what the subject does not do. It expresses a negative action, specifically the absence of destruction or annihilation. Ludwig AI confirms this is correct.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

39%

Science

39%

Academia

19%

Less common in

Formal & Business

1%

Wiki

1%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "does not destroy" is a versatile and grammatically sound expression used to convey the preservation or non-annihilation of something. Ludwig AI confirms its correctness and usability. It's frequently used in News & Media and Science contexts, and while neutrally registered, its formal application is seen in Academia. To ensure clarity, avoid overuse of passive constructions and consider the specific nuance you want to convey, perhaps exploring options like "preserves" or "maintains" for more precise communication. While being similar in meaning to alternatives such as "does not damage" it is important to ensure that your sentence follows well defined grammar rules.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

does not damage

Emphasizes the lack of harm caused.

does not impair

Emphasizes the lack of impediment or weakening.

preserves

Focuses on maintaining the original state.

leaves intact

Indicates that something remains whole and untouched.

maintains

Highlights the act of keeping something in its current condition.

keeps safe

Highlights the act of ensuring safety or protection.

safeguards

Highlights the act of protecting something from harm.

sustains

Focuses on supporting something to continue its existence.

does not eradicate

Stresses the failure to completely eliminate something.

upholds

Emphasizes maintaining a principle or standard.

FAQs

What can I say instead of "does not destroy"?

You can use alternatives like "does not damage", "preserves", or "maintains" depending on the context.

How to use "does not destroy" in a sentence?

You can use "does not destroy" to indicate that something doesn't cause irreversible damage or annihilation. For example: "The new cleaning method "does not destroy" the delicate fabric".

What's the difference between "does not destroy" and "does not damage"?

"Does not destroy" implies a complete obliteration or irreversible ruin, whereas "does not damage" suggests that there's no harm or impairment caused, even if the object is not completely ruined.

Is it better to use "does not destroy" or a more specific verb?

While ""does not destroy"" is correct, using a more specific verb like "preserves", "maintains", or "safeguards" can often provide a clearer and more vivid picture of the situation.