was not short

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was not short" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it to describe something that does not have a short length or duration, often in a comparative context. Example: "The meeting was not short, lasting over two hours."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Sport

Books

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

58 human-written examples

It was not short.

The New York Times

He was not short of confidence, though.

The Economist

Intel was not short of talented Indians.

The Guardian - Tech

By most accounts, Mr. Guzmán was not short on ego.

The New York Times

But after Blue Peter, Noakes was not short of work.

The Guardian - TV & Radio

But his life was not short of drama.

MIT Technology Review

All the same, his life was not short on love.

The Guardian - Books

The spring of 1968 was not short of bad news.

The Guardian - Sport

As a result, he was not short of enemies.

The Economist

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

2 human-written examples

This was the first genuine auction in which the state was not short-changed.

The Guardian

"It was not short-lived, and it was not spontaneous," Judge Covello said.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "was not short" to emphasize that something exceeded expectations in terms of length or duration. It can add a subtle nuance compared to simply stating it was 'long'.

Common error

Avoid using "was not short" when a more direct term like 'long', 'extended', or 'ample' would be clearer and more concise. Overusing negation can sometimes create ambiguity.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was not short" functions as a negative assertion or denial. It's used to negate the idea that something is brief or of small extent. As Ludwig AI suggests, it can be used to describe duration, length, or quantity.

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

News & Media

76%

Sport

10%

Books

8%

Less common in

Wiki

4%

Science

1%

Formal & Business

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was not short" serves as a grammatically sound and versatile way to express that something exceeded expectations in terms of length, duration, or quantity. Ludwig AI confirms its correctness and usability. While alternatives like "was lengthy" or "was extensive" exist, "was not short" provides a nuanced emphasis on the absence of brevity. Its frequent occurrence in news and media, coupled with its neutral register, underscores its broad applicability. When employing this phrase, bear in mind to avoid ambiguity by ensuring that the context necessitates emphasizing the non-brevity rather than merely stating the length.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was not brief

A more direct way of stating the absence of brevity.

was anything but brief

Similar to 'far from brief', but with a stronger emphasis on negation.

was far from brief

Expresses the opposite of being short in a more emphatic way.

was lengthy

Directly refers to the prolonged duration or physical extent of something.

was extended

Focuses on the prolonged or drawn-out nature of something.

was considerable

Emphasizes the magnitude or extent of something instead of directly addressing its length.

was prolonged

Similar to 'extended', but often implies a negative or unwanted duration.

was substantial

Highlights the significant amount or size of something.

was ample

Indicates that there was more than enough of something available or present.

was sufficient

Conveys that something met the required needs or expectations.

FAQs

How can I use "was not short" in a sentence?

The phrase "was not short" is used to indicate that something had a considerable length, duration, or quantity. For example, "The lecture "was not short", lasting over two hours" or "His temper "was not short", and he expressed his anger vocally."

What can I say instead of "was not short"?

You can use alternatives like "was lengthy", "was extensive", or "was prolonged" depending on the context. Each alternative conveys a similar meaning with slightly different nuances.

Which is correct, "was not short" or "was lengthy"?

Both phrases are grammatically correct, but they may be used in different contexts. "Was lengthy" is a more direct way of expressing that something had a considerable duration. "Was not short" emphasizes that it exceeded the expectation of being short.

What's the difference between "was not short" and "was brief"?

"Was not short" implies that something had a considerable length or duration, while "was brief" implies that something was of short duration or concise. They are antonyms.