+0
"There was nothing at all to eat."

"There was anything at all to eat." (the same meaning - nothing to eat) but - is this correct?

"There was hardly anything to eat." (there could be something after all)

Could I also say "It was hardly anything/nothing at all to eat there."??

Thanks for your help.
Comments  
Emily__"There was nothing at all to eat."

"There was anything at all to eat." (the same meaning - nothing to eat) but - is this correct?

"There was hardly anything to eat." (there could be something after all)

Could I also say "It was hardly anything/nothing at all to eat there."??
"There was anything at all to eat." This is incorrect. Try "There wasn't anything at all to eat" instead.

"It was hardly anything/nothing at all to eat there." I doubt it's correct - it sounds unnatural and I'd never say it. (As noted above, you can't use anything)
There was hardly anything to eat.
Or
The was nothing to eat at all.

The was nothing at all to eat sound strange but I do not know any rule that forbids such syntax.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
InchoateknowledgeThere was hardly anything to eat.
Or
The was nothing to eat at all.

The was nothing at all to eat sound strange but I do not know any rule that forbids such syntax.
As for "There was nothing to eat at all" vs. "There was nothing at all to eat", I'd say both are correct. If there is any slight difference in meaning, I - as a non-native speaker - don't see it. Maybe the latter stresses more the "nothingness" of nothing Emotion: smile.

We don't want to scare Emily, do we? English is easy, right? Emotion: wink
"There was nothing at all to eat." CORRECT

"There was anything at all to eat." (the same meaning - nothing to eat) but - is this correct? INCORRECT

"There was hardly anything to eat." (there could be something after all) CORRECT

Could I also say "It was hardly anything/nothing at all to eat there."?? NO. Say: There was hardly anything at all to eat there. (The first there is the 'there of existence'; the one at the end is the 'there of place'.)

To use anything as a negative you need another negative in the sentence:

There was not anything at all to eat.
There was never anything at all to eat.

hardly counts as a negative. (barely and scarcely also count as negatives. They mean the same thing.)

There was hardly anything at all to eat.
There was scarcely ever anything at all to eat.

CJ
CalifJim"There was nothing at all to eat." CORRECT

"There was anything at all to eat." (the same meaning - nothing to eat) but - is this correct? INCORRECT

"There was hardly anything to eat." (there could be something after all) CORRECT

Could I also say "It was hardly anything/nothing at all to eat there."?? NO. Say: There was hardly anything at all to eat there.

To use anything as a negative you need another negative in the sentence:

There was not anything at all to eat.
There was never anything at all to eat.

hardly counts as a negative. (barely and scarcely also count as negatives. They mean the same thing.)

There was hardly anything at all to eat.
There was scarcely ever anything at all to eat.

CJ

What about "There was nothing to eat at all" vs. "There was nothing at all to eat"? See my post above.

Thanks in advance.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
What about "There was nothing to eat at all" vs. "There was nothing at all to eat"?

There was nothing to eat at all. Correct.
There was nothing at all to eat. Correct.

The second shows the more natural word order, in my opinion.

CJ
In english you cannot have a double negative EVER, like "you can't say nothing" can't is a negative and so is nothing, so the only way to say it correctly is to change nothing to anything. negatives: any word with not in it (including abbreviations), never, without, and there are loads more
AnonymousIn english you cannot have a double negative EVER, like "you can't say nothing"
You can say "Say something, come on! You can't say nothing!"
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies