looks like there are not recently opened opportunities

I'm sorry, but not only is that grammatically incorrect, it's also kind of passive aggressive. I'm also not sure what the hell 'recently opened opportunities' are. Are they newly created?

Try this instead.

It looks like there are no recently opened opportunities.

Hey Jespah,

Thanks for the quick response. For additional context, the dashboard is supposed to display recently created business opportunities from our built-in customer relationship tool. If there is no data, the message I am inquiring about displays.

I appreciate the answer and I personally agree with you, however I have some colleagues that are not quite as convinced. Would you mind providing any sources or even some of your credentials to add some additional weight to your answer? Thanks a bunch!

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1931/there-are-no-comments-there-is-no-comment

This is a similar discussion ^. The term 'there are no' is grammatically correct, e. g. it also means 'there aren't any'.

Personal credentials? I'm a native speaker. I have a BA in Philosophy, a JD, and I'm getting my MA in Communications - all of these are disciplines where you have to write a lot.

Jespah is correct.

"There are not <nouns>." is incorrect. Try a google search. "There are not blankets." "There are not rats." Wrong, wrong, wrong.

"There are no <nouns>" and "There are not any <nouns>" are interchangeable, and acceptable to native speakers.

This ain't Wikipedia. Like the answer, or don't. Crabbing about a lack of citations is just sad.

Pathetic grammar nazi in a grammar thread. Who'd'a thunk?

thanks for the response and I totally agree.

whoah bruh. Cool to see another fan of Frasier on the boards!

The nazi does make some compelling points... not really related to the topic, but good stuff.

Crabbing about a lack of citations is sad? I'm just making the point that, much like in the field of nutrition science, there aren't checks and balances on the information being provided; this is what leads to the broscience propagated by the media - claims that are completely false, and aren't backed up by any real support.

If something isn't supported by real sources, how is the answer supposed to have any value? For someone with Spock in his profile picture, you're not approaching this very logically. All I'm asking is that if someone is going to provide an answer to a question, that it be appropriately supported by something solid.

It reminds me of a parable that I think will really help explain this for you. Once, there were three pigs, with different opinions on appropriate building materials, and how much effort should go into construction. To make a long story short, the houses that weren't built with solid support were blown down by the big bad wolf.

In this classic tale, the big bad wolf is often cast as a villain, but that ignores the larger truth. The big bad wolf is really just a metaphor for reasonable inquiry and testing, pushing back against pig houses (the claims being made, for those who aren't following the metaphor). I think we can all agree the houses that collapse shouldn't be used for shelter in the first place, as that can be even more dangerous than being exposed to the elements.

When you make the claim that some grammar rule is correct, that claim doesn't make any sense unless there's something being referenced - correct according to what?

To give you another example, our lord and saver Jesus tells us a true story about two men who built their houses on different foundations. The first build on shifting sand, and at first his house was a marvel, but loh! The sand shifted, and his house collapsed. The other man build on a solid foundation of rock, and loh! The rock did not shift, and his house stood.

Finally, I think this third story will really cement the point I'm trying to make: if someone goes to all the trouble of searching out rules and examples, all summer long, and then someone comes along who has just been loitering by the pool all summer, should that ant give the grasshopper all those supplies to survive the winter? Well, I guess that question depends on how much of a humanitarian you are, but it seems clear that the grasshopper hasn't done enough work to contribute.

keep in mind that ant #1 around here is jespah

you are the grasshopper on the landscape

Has the poster you are addressing attacked you in some way? I think not. So, why the attempt to belittle someone? Why not just offer your opinion without digging into contributors?

By the way, I found some errors in your post. Are you interested in having them pointed out to you? Then we can maybe talk about the meaning behind the idiom referred to as the pot calling the kettle black.

First paragraph: ". . . there aren't checks and balances on . . ."

That should be: ". . . there are no checks and balances on . . ." At the very least, you should have said: ". . . there aren't any checks and balances on . . ."

". . . claims that are completely false, and aren't backed up by any real support." That should be: ". . . claims that are false and not supported by any accurate source." Also, the comma was not necessary?

Second paragraph: "If something isn't supported by real sources, how is the answer supposed to have any value?"

That should be: "If something isn't supported by accurate sources, how will the answer have value?" Your use to the word real is wrong. Accurate or not, all sources are real.

Third paragraph: "Once, there were three pigs, with different opinions on appropriate building materials . . ."

First of all, the second comma is not necessary. In order for the comma to work, you would need to rephrase your sentence as follows. "Once, there were three pigs, each with a different opinion on appropriate building materials . . ." Beyond that, you should have used the word differing instead of different.

Sixth paragraph: " The first build on shifting sand . . ."

That should be: "The first one built on shifting sand . . ." I was willing to call that error a typo. But two sentences later, you repeated the error. So . . .

However, the story in your last paragraph sums up your contribution nicely.

". . . it seems clear that the grasshopper hasn't done enough work to contribute."