4 ms·
Logically, the two constructions have different meanings. The first is equivalent to "nothing needs", so it excludes the possibility of some but not all things
by Silhouette 5y ago
Logically, the two constructions have different meanings. The first is equivalent to "nothing needs", so it excludes the possibility of some but not all things needing, while the second includes that possibility.
However, some people use the first incorrectly when they really mean the second. This happens often enough that you could argue the incorrect usage has now become idiomatic as well.
- jholman 5y agoI'd like to agree with you about the "nothing needs..." construction being incorrect, but remember that you're never allowed to accuse Shakespeare of using English poorly. All that glisters is not gold— Often have you heard that told. Merchant of Venice, Act II Scene 7 (Also Tolkien, in the Riddle of Strider, in Fellowship. Imagine a comparison where Tolkien is the less-distinguished writer, how often does that happen.)