Is it correct to say "A world with no borders, no time and no place."?

Why do I get the feeling that "boundaries" is a better word choice in this case? Also is it better to say "A world without borders"?

Which word combination should I use in this sentence?

The context is an attempt to explain how some companies believe in sharing educational knowledge around the world. Here is more of the paragraph:

"We see the world coming together in the virtual realm to share knowledge that will raise us all up to a higher level: A world with no borders, no time and no place, where each individual has their own special spark to contribute to the new discourse taking place."

  • 1
    I would make two small changes: remove the "up" (that will raise us all to a higher place), and remove the last two words (to contribute to the new discourse). I think that using the word place two times reads a little awkward, though it's not ungrammatical. (If you'd prefer to leave it in, you could change it to "no time and no location" - but now I'm treading dangerously close to proofreading, which is off-topic.)
    – J.R.
    Commented Feb 25, 2013 at 21:50

2 Answers 2


A world with ‘no time’ and ‘no place’ would not be a world anyone would be capable of perceiving or living in—so I assume that what you mean is no borders (or boundaries) in either or space: neither time nor space is divided by any boundaries (or borders).

Border in English generally denotes the area adjoining a boundary: the decorated edging on a piece of cloth or on a garment, or the border area alongside a national or district boundary. Border as a designation for the line separating two areas is by and large reserved for national boundaries: we speak of border crossings and border guards and the US-Canada border. The name of the French organization Medecins sans frontieres is translated Doctors Without Borders.

I think boundary probably fits your need better, unless you are writing specifically of national boundaries. In particular, we speak of boundless or unbounded freedom or opportunity, which seem to be the sort of connotations you want. And boundaries is a more sonorous word, if you are writing for the ear.

So: a world without boundaries of time or of space has a nice rhythm; alternatively, a world unbounded in time or space flows a bit quicker.


Mostly ditto on StoneyB. I'd just like to add that "no time and no place" really makes no sense in this context. "A world with no time and no place" sounds like some kind of science fiction story about a realm of disembodied minds or something. It does not indicate a lack of limitations but rather an other-worldliness.

I presume your intent is to say something like "a world not limited by time and place". But even that doesn't really make sense in context. I'm not sure whether by "no borders" you mean sharing knowledge across national borders, cultural or ethnic boundaries, across professions, etc. Or maybe you mean all of these. In a sense then, you would be removing or overcoming limitations of place. But what does this have to do with time? I don't suppose that you are sharing knowledge with the ancient Romans or with people from the future, unless these companies you are talking about have invented time travel.

Perhaps if I read the whole context this would make sense. Perhaps you explain later. If not, though, you probably want to reword this part.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .