Community Web Version Now Available
The difference between 'there was no bus' and 'there were no trains' - We had to walk because there was no bus. - There are no trains today. The drivers are on strike. There are examples from a textbook. I'm wondering why 'bus' is singular in the first example but 'train' plural in the second. Can I say 'there were no buses' or 'There was no train' instead?
Dec 30, 2015 2:37 AM
Answers · 5
Hello Haru, The difference has to do with circumstance. In the first sentence, a certain bus did not show up. There is only one bus. In the second sentence, there isn't a single train in operation because the drivers are on strike. All trains won't be running that day. You could say "there are no buses" if there was a city holiday or a strike and all of the buses weren't running and similarly you could say "there was no train" if a particular train didn't show up. The two are not interchangeable and depend entirely on the circumstances. Hope that helps!
December 30, 2015
It depends on context. If you would only expect to have one, then it is singular. Which i think makes sense since not all the buses can get oneself where, specifically, one wants to go.
December 30, 2015
Language Skills
English, German, Japanese, Latin
Learning Language
English, Latin