The clownfish is no happier...

lucy black · Post by **lucy black** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:27 pm

I am just the "kind of person" who only writes "fluff" (I haven't written much, so that's a woman, right Stephen?), but I'd just like to clarify this for Lucy, because it wasn't answered explicitly.

As my soulmate "Fluffy"

pointed out straight away, the "no" is just a negation which we use when we somehow expected the subject to be Xer than the object.

e.g If I say "Lucy Lace is no prettier than Lucy Black" then probably Ms.Lace has won a beauty contest, or Ms.Black is famously plain.

In other environments "no" may be quite different, and will often be a different part of speech.

The people who think they know everything and post here, one assumes, mainly in order to be rude to people, have said nothing that means anything at all, as per usual.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:58 am

I am just the "kind of person" who only writes "fluff" (I haven't written much, so that's a woman, right Stephen?),

No, just an windbag.

Your main point is quite interesting, and probably correct. By negating the comparative one is also negating the expectation that the comparative is true.

lucy black · Post by **lucy black** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:24 am

Stephen, please explain to this windbag how anything other than the verb and its complement could be being negated. That seems a little windy to me - I think you are trying to squeeze some technical juice out of simple idiomatic usage.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:14 pm

I don't quite understand your question. Let's look at the matter in another way. Lets use formulae

a) He isn't happier than he was before. He /== happier than he was before.

b) He is no happier than he was before./He isn't any happier than he was before. He == no happier than he was before.

The 'simple idiomatic usage' you refer to applies to a wide variety of constructions. The reason is that by emphasizing we are negating the complement rather than the whole phrase we are suggesting the complement is in need of specific negation - that is to say there is an expectation to the contrary.

It is fairly standard in languages for the unusual construction, the marked form, to have a special meaning.[/list]

lucy black · Post by **lucy black** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:41 pm

I meant to say "comparative adjective" not verb

I don't understand the answer to the question you didn't understand, Stephen.

A is no prettier than B / A is not prettier than B

"prettier (than B)" is clearly negated in either case. The reason for a semantic difference lies in idiomatic usage (your last sentence seems sensible). Do you think that you can find technical differences such as "scope of negation" to explain all aspects of the language?

lucy black · Post by **lucy black** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:09 pm

For example, if we take the sentences:

He is no superman/ He is not superman

then the "scope of the negation" seems the same and the fact that "no" means "far from being a" seems to be just idiomatic usage.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:48 pm

If I hear someone say He's no superman I would take it to imply that the person is weak (unless the phrase is followed by a but...), while He's not Superman would be a simple statement of fact (unless you were talking about Clark Kent).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:34 pm

I was going to say the same thing, lol, but then, you had already mentioned spring chickens on page 1. I think we can assume that the 'be no+noun' structure is the more frequent LOL.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:16 pm

Would you go as far as to say BE no + noun can often imply the opposite (insofar as nouns can have opposites)?

She's no angel.
He's no Einstein
He's no David Beckham

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:25 pm

Well, it's hardly complimentary, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's an assertion that the person is the complete opposite (of what would be the unnegated noun), if only because there could only ever be one Einstein etc to which all comparison would be ultimately pointless (We are all unique etc). But more to the pragmatic point, I think the form does function to criticize, but in a roundabout (indirect, indeed, potentially humourous) and "limited" way; it's like it's deliberate exaggeration so as to signal it's not to be taken too seriously or meant to cause too much offence.

lucy lace · Post by **lucy lace** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:22 pm

It seems to me that the no in no + adjective and no + noun have two distinctly separate functions/meanings:

He's no superman = he's really weak.
He's no angel = he's badly behaved.

He's no funnier than Tom = he is as funny as Tom, perhaps less funny
He's no taller than Tom = he is as tall as Tom, perhaps less tall

No + noun seems to emphasize the opposite. No + adjective seems to emphasize equal or less than.

lucy black · Post by **lucy black** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:18 pm

Lucy:

Not + comparative adjective would generally emphasize equal or less than
No + comparative adjective also suggests an expectation is not met.

No + noun could be just "There are no cups on the table", so you have to be careful of the exact environment.

However in the kind of sentences we have mentioned before, then it means that the subject does not measure up. It does not exactly mean the opposite however, as fluffy hamster pointed out. The man in "He is no David Beckham" might just be an average player, in an average team.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:51 pm

I love it when I get the comparatively easy question to answer.

lucy black · Post by **lucy black** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:26 pm

Actually "far from being a" was a better explanation - as you could say "He is no criminal".

Perhaps I should quit while I'm ahead, but it did strike me that perhaps the negation might be conceived to be on something invisible. A sentence like "She is no amount prettier than Lucy" strikes me as something that might once have been said

- and a sentence in which the "no" would function in front of the noun as a kind of negative quantifier, as it usually does. Perhaps the modern idiom (I still call it that, since you can't really make that kind of sentence now, if you ever could) was born, using ellipsis, in that way - and it might explain why this structure rather has the feeling "the same as".

Is that what you mean, Stephen?

sonya · Post by **sonya** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:52 am

I feel like "no" sounds like "no more (happy)", while not is actually a negation. So when you say the clownfish is not happier than any other fish, I get the impression that he's in fact sadder than the other fish. No happier just means he's about the same. That's what I think...