Used and loved by millions

Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak quote

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak

CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com

MitStanfordHarvardAustralian Nationa UniversityNanyangOxford

we've not found

Grammar usage guide and real-world examples

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

11 human-written examples

Here, we've not found that form.

"So far we've not found anything approaching a magic bullet to increase adherence," he said.

News & Media

The New York Times

We've not found anywhere else in the cosmos that is a perfect haven for life".

News & Media

The Guardian

"We've not found it [breaches] before, not found it since," he added.

News & Media

The Guardian

"We've not found a Russian distributor yet, but it is enormously important for this film to be shown in Russia if Polish-Russian relations in the 21st century are to be based in truth, not lies.

"Here, we've not found that form, so we've got to be disappointed.

News & Media

BBC
Show more...

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

49 human-written examples

And we cannot destroy what we have not found.

"But we have not found our ultimate speed.

News & Media

The New York Times

We have not found a conflict of interest".

News & Media

The New York Times

There are still several problems we have not found solutions over decades/centuries.

We have not found any modifiable risk factors which influence their growth pattern.

Show more...

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

This construction is particularly effective in British English journalism to maintain a rhythmic flow in sentences.

Common error

Do not use "we've not found" with specific past time markers like 'yesterday' or 'last week'. The present perfect requires a time period that continues to the present moment. Instead, use the simple past if a specific time is mentioned.

Antonio Rotolo, PhD - Digital Humanist | Computational Linguist | CEO @Ludwig.guru

Antonio Rotolo, PhD

Digital Humanist | Computational Linguist | CEO @Ludwig.guru

Source & Trust

92%

Authority and reliability

4.8/5

Expert rating

Real-world application tested

Linguistic Context

The phrase "we've not found" serves as a negative present perfect construction. It combines the first-person plural pronoun 'we' with a contracted auxiliary 'have' and the negative particle 'not', followed by the past participle 'found'. According to "Ludwig", this structure is used to indicate a state of non-discovery that exists from the past up until the present moment.

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

News & Media

45%

Science

35%

Academia

20%

Less common in

Social Media

5%

Wiki

3%

Reference

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In conclusion, "we've not found" is a standard and effective way to communicate the absence of a result. "Ludwig" identifies it as a common phrase in high-tier journalism and scientific literature. While it is synonymous with "we haven't found", it is often chosen for its specific rhythmic qualities in British English or to place a clearer emphasis on the negative 'not'. Writers should feel confident using this phrase in professional contexts, provided they do not pair it with specific past-time markers that would require the simple past tense.

FAQs

What can I say instead of "we've not found"?

You can use alternatives like "we haven't found", "we have yet to find" or "we have not discovered" depending on the context.

Is "we've not found" grammatically correct?

Yes, it is a perfectly correct contraction of the present perfect negative. While "we haven't found" is more common in American English, "we've not found" is frequently seen in high-quality British sources like "The Guardian".

What is the difference between "we've not found" and "we haven't found"?

There is no semantic difference. The distinction is primarily stylistic and regional. "we haven't found" is the most standard contraction globally, while "we've not found" places slightly more emphasis on the word 'not'.

Can I use "we've not found" in a scientific paper?

While correct, scientific papers often prefer the uncontracted "we have not found" to maintain a formal tone, though "Ludwig" examples show that contractions appear occasionally in scientific reporting.

ChatGPT power + Grammarly precisionChatGPT power + Grammarly precision
ChatGPT + Grammarly

Editing plus AI, all in one place.

Stop switching between tools. Your AI writing partner for everything—polishing proposals, crafting emails, finding the right tone.

Source & Trust

92%

Authority and reliability

4.8/5

Expert rating

Real-world application tested

Most frequent sentences: