Which is grammatically correct: 'We can do nothing' or 'We can't do anything'?

Question

On the tube this morning, I saw a poster from a well-known charity appealing for funds. On the poster, it said:

'Without your help, we can do nothing'.

I thought about this and, to me, it didn't seem to make sense.

'We can do' is a pro-active statement, of positive action, but 'nothing' is a negative, nothingness, which sort of annuls the pro-active action. How can you pro-actively do something negative?

Surely it should be, 'We can't do anything'?

What are the grammatical rules about this? I would equate it to maths - if you multiply a number by 0, the answer always equals 0. So, if you are pro-actively doing 'nothing', it cancels it out.

Whereas, 'anything' is a positive value (i.e. it's a tangible something), which 'we can't do'. So, 'we can't do anything' is grammatically correct, whereas 'we can do nothing' isn't.

What's the correct answer? Is there one? Does my question even make sense?

Answer 1

They are BOTH gramatically correct - we can do nothing??? What's wrong with that? Same as, we can't do anything! They both mean exactly the same thing.

Answer 2

Grammatically, 'we can do nothing' is simple. Double-negatives are more complexed but they do serve a purpose. Grammar has rules; therefore, grammar is not always best if used as art.
'We cannot do anything' does not sound that bad, and I see no problem in it.

So, you must establish purpose behind what you want to say and how you want to say; in other words, grammar rules are often seen as guidelines and you may have reason to violate some of the rules.

Hopefully, people will not use this excuse to violate guidelines to life.

Answer 3

It is correct either way! It is a matter of preference as to the version you would choose! If you don't like the first one, then don't use it for anything.
Furthermore, think of it this way, I am certain that if this was a truly reputable charity, they had the poster checked for correctness before it was printed and hung!

Answer 4

They are both correct. As long as you don't use a double negative, it's all good. In the instance of "we can do nothing", they are stating what they can do without ur help. Same with "we can't do anything".

Answer 5

Both are grammatically correct depending on the way they are used. Trust me I'm an author. I think I would know. In this case while not the best thing to use it's supposed to catch the readers attention by making them think perhaps it's wrong. As it obviously has in your case.

Answer 6

Both are correct.

Can you do nothing? Yes, you can do nothing. I feel like I'm doing nothing right at this moment, hanging out on Answers.....

It seems that I can't do anything about it, either. Here I sit, trying to convince myself to get back to work....to no avail. I can't do anything but answer on Answers.

Perhaps you are thinking about the double negatives we so often hear.... ug..... "I can't not do nothing." "We ain't not going."

Answer 7

actually both are correct. but your right, the way you said it sounds way better... the only time it wouldnt make sense is if it was a double negative, like "we can't do nothing" that would be incorrect.

Answer 8

The secret is not to have two negatives. 'We can't do nothing' is grammatically incorrect

'Without your help we can do anything.' ( 2 positives doesn't make sense, in this context)
Nothing wrong with 'Without your help we can do nothing.'
or would you rather see 'Without your help we can do anything.'?

Answer 9

Stylistic choice. Depending on how you want to present the information, you could chose one or the other. Both are correct.

Answer 10

Both grammatically correct but the most straightforward one is 'we can do nothing'.