+0
Hello, I am wondering whether I should use plural with "any", for example

(1) This object can not be set with any property at this particular timing.

(2) This object can not be set with any properties at this particular timing.

Which one is correct and I also appreciate if someone can point me the guide of this with "any".

Thanks
Comments  
Hello Jaimec

Frankly speaking, I can't get what your example sentences mean. So I can't answer about which sentence is right. I'm so sorry for it. But I can give you a general rule about "any".

"Any" is used two ways:


1) "some" (=an unspecific amount of): used in interrogative and negative sentences : any + plural



  • Hello, are there any letters for me?



  • No, we don't have any letters for you.



  • Yes, we have some letters for you.


  • 2) "every" (=an unspecific kind of) : usually used in affirmative sentences : any + singular



    • Here any student can speak English.
    paco
Super. You have answered my question and cleared my doubts.

Thanks a lot
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Hello Paco,Emotion: smile

"1) "some" (=an unspecific amount of): used in interrogative and negative sentences : any + plural"

What happens if there is only one object? For example : "This pair of pants doesn't have any belt." Can I say it? Or I have to say "This pair of pants has no belt."

Thanks in advance....

Spoonfedbaby
SpoonfedBabyWhat happens if there is only one object? For example : "This pair of pants doesn't have any belt." Can I say it? Or I have to say "This pair of pants has no belt."
Hello SFB

I agree. In such a negative sentence, we have to use <any+singular countable noun>. We might say "This pair of pants doesn't have a belt". But the use of "any belt" intensifies 'no-ness'.

paco
Question related to this post:

1. It does not touch any side of the rectangle.

2. It does not touch any sides of the rectangle.

Which is correct and why?
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Both are possible. I would use the first. It seems from this limited context that touching just one side at a time is the focus of the idea.

CJ