I'm no taller than John?

♥♦♣♠ NOT A TEACHER ♥♦♣♠
With my knowledge primarily based on the sources I am in possession of, all I can say on the topic is that no in place of not is stronger, as is the case in many other similar kinds of sentences with no in place of not a/an/any.
:roll:

engee30 said:

With my knowledge primarily based on the sources I am in possession of, all I can say on the topic is that no in place of not is stronger, as is the case in many other similar kinds of sentences with no in place of not a/an/any.

Click to expand...

It would be helpful to know what the sources are.

fivejedjon said:

It would be helpful to know what the sources are.

Click to expand...

Collins COBUILD & OALD, to name just a few.

Perhaps I am being less than competent this evening, engee, but my quick look through OALD, Collins Cobuild English Grammar and Collins Cobuild English Usage turned up no reference to 'no' being stronger than 'not'. Could you give page references, please?

fivejedjon said:

Perhaps I am being less than competent this evening, engee, but my quick look through OALD, Collins Cobuild English Grammar and Collins Cobuild English Usage turned up no reference to 'no' being stronger than 'not'. Could you give page references, please?

Click to expand...

No worries, fivejedjon, everything's fine with you this evening. I'm sure that you've now found notes like 'no is used in front of comparative adjectives instead of not' or 'no - used before adjectives and adverbs to mean not'. As for the statement saying that no is stronger than not in cases such as those, I can't seem to remember the name of the source - I wouldn't be writing anything just like that, would I.

engee30 said:

No worries, fivejedjon, everything's fine with you this evening. I'm sure that you've now found notes like 'no is used in front of comparative adjectives instead of not' or 'no - used before adjectives and adverbs to mean not'.As for the statement saying that no is stronger than not in cases such as those, I can't seem to remember the name of the source - I wouldn't be writing anything just like that, would I.

Click to expand...

You appear to be saying that you now do not remember the source of a statement that you originally claimed came from two respected sources. Please don't do that again, engee. I would imagine that most readers of this forum believe that those of us who answer are honest.

fivejedjon said:

[...] a statement that you originally claimed came from two respected sources [...].

Click to expand...

I said, to name just a few.

fivejedjon said:

I think several points are being slightly overlooked:

1. I am not saying that a comparative form with no always and only means a simple negation of the comparative in the sense of no ...er than = as ...as. I am simply saying that it can imply this.

2. I am not saying that a comparative form in a negative utterance with not always and only implies an opposite comparative form, merely that it can.

3. English is a language. Languages do not always follow the rules of formal logic,

4. There are clearly situations in which there is a difference between no-negation and not-negation. I gave an example of this in post #6.

Having established a difference between no and not- negation with a noun, we can consider whether it is possible with a comparative structure.

1. Prague isn’t more beautiful than Paris.
2. Prague is no more beautiful than Paris.

In 1#, the (contracted) not negates the verb, and therefore the whole assertion. In #2, it is not clear whether no is to be read as referring to more alone, or to more beautiful. Both readings appear to be possible. In the case of the former, definitely, and the latter, perhaps, then it seems to me that there is an implication that Prague is as beautiful as Paris. It appears to be impossible to ‘prove’ this. All I can say is that in my own usage, and in that of others that I have encountered, this appears to be possible. I feel that #4 below is less likely to be heard than #3.

3. Prague isn’t more beautiful than Paris; in fact it’s rather an ugly city outside the Old Town.
4. ?Prague is no more beautiful than Paris; in fact it’s rather an ugly city outside the Old Town.

The situation with comparatives formed with –er is not so striking, but I feel that #6 is less likely to be heard than #5

5. I’m not taller than John; in fact, I am quite a bit shorter.
6. ?I’m no taller than John; in fact, I am quite a bit shorter.

Click to expand...

Just one last question!
Something still unclear to me is (I might have misunderstood) that if "no more" or "no taller"'s no is a simple negation of the comparative, then when you negate something, it usually contains the other parts except the negated part, so the definition is somewhat confusing.

I mean no taller may mean the other parts excepts taller -> equal or shorter. I know you also said in the sense of as~as, but negation and as~as are contradicting each other.

I think that's why my grammar book says it has zero meaning, which is similar to my opinion "there is no fact from this". I think "no taller than John" means "from John's status I have nothing liker being taller", so no is not negation but the absence of something from the compared object.

fivejedjon said:

Having established a difference between no and not- negation with a noun, we can consider whether it is possible with a comparative structure.

1. Prague isn’t more beautiful than Paris.
2. Prague is no more beautiful than Paris.

In 1#, the (contracted) not negates the verb, and therefore the whole assertion. In #2, it is not clear whether no is to be read as referring to more alone, or to more beautiful. Both readings appear to be possible. In the case of the former, definitely, and the latter, perhaps, then it seems to me that there is an implication that Prague is as beautiful as Paris. It appears to be impossible to ‘prove’ this. All I can say is that in my own usage, and in that of others that I have encountered, this appears to be possible. I feel that #4 below is less likely to be heard than #3.

3. Prague isn’t more beautiful than Paris; in fact it’s rather an ugly city outside the Old Town.
4. ?Prague is no more beautiful than Paris; in fact it’s rather an ugly city outside the Old Town.

Click to expand...

Main difference for me is that 1. simply says that Prague is not as beautiful as Paris, regardless of how beautiful Paris is.

I read 2. as having (a strongly stressed) implication (that 1. lacks) that Paris is not beautiful. So there is an equation of how beautiful Prague and Paris are:
Prague is no more beautiful than Paris = Prague is as (not beautiful) as Paris.

freezeframe said:

Main difference for me is that 1. simply says that Prague is not as beautiful as Paris, regardless of how beautiful Paris is.

I read 2. as having (a strongly stressed) implication (that 1. lacks) that Paris is not beautiful. So there is an equation of how beautiful Prague and Paris are:
Prague is no more beautiful than Paris = Prague is as (not beautiful) as Paris.

Click to expand...

I see that point with your original "he is no more intelligent than Heather" -- Heather is not intelligent", and I see the possibility of that reading with my #2. Your reading, "Prague is as (not beautiful) as Paris", does at least imply equality.

I see two problems in addition to the four I have already noted (which probably means that it's time to stop ;-)):

1. I think that we are talking about feeling here, rather than anything that can be settled by resort to 'rules of grammar'.

2. If we are talking about feeling, then, apart from Philo, whose reliance on formal logic does not, in my opinion, help when we are talking about a living language, I am the only native speaker taking part in this discussion. It would be useful to see what other native speakers feel.

That penultimate sentence is not intended as any negative reflection on the opinions expressed by you and BC, both of whom have shown in this forum an understanding of English grammar superior to that of many native speakers.

fivejedjon said:

I see that point with your original "he is no more intelligent than Heather" -- Heather is not intelligent", and I see the possibility of that reading with my #2. Your reading, "Prague is as (not beautiful) as Paris", does at least imply equality.

I see two problems in addition to the four I have already noted (which probably means that it's time to stop ;-)):

1. I think that we are talking about feeling here, rather than anything that can be settled by resort to 'rules of grammar'.

2. If we are talking about feeling, then, apart from Philo, whose reliance on formal logic does not, in my opinion, help when we are talking about a living language, I am the only native speaker taking part in this discussion. It would be useful to see what other native speakers feel.

That penultimate sentence is not intended as any negative reflection on the opinions expressed by you and BC, both of whom have shown in this forum an understanding of English grammar superior to that of many native speakers.

Click to expand...

No need for qualified statements. I'm not taking any offense at anything here. This community has been very welcoming and drama-free. :up:

I agree to a point that this is about what you term "feeling" (not that there's anything wrong with that) and I do not have qualifications to comment on Philo's comment -- my training was in philosophy and we navel gazed a lot about "feeling" :-D I also did dismally in the logic course.

:cheers:

fivejedjon said:

As we all know, philo, language is not necessarily logical.

Click to expand...

However, in the vast majority of cases, it is!

I should therefore be interested in seeing any data supporting the notion that many English-speakers suspend normal logic in this particular case. (As previously stated, I, for one, do not!)

philo2009 said:

However, in the vast majority of cases, it is!

Click to expand...

I should be interested in seeing any data supporting the notion that it is.

From the time that self-appointed arbiters started writing grammars, people have attempted to impose mathematical logic on the language. Some of their efforts succeeded, in the formal written language, at least; others failed. The rule against the emphatic double negative was one of their successes ( though it lives on in speech in some dialects), the 'shall/will' future one of their failures. Points not finally decided include the 'rule' against splitting the infinitive, and the use of the subjunctive in modern BrE.

If the language followed the rules of logic, there would be no irregular verbs, prepositions would all have one 'meaning', all adverbs would end in 'ly', ...

1) Prague isn’t more beautiful than Paris.
2) Prague is no more beautiful than Paris.

As a late entry in the tale of two cities. I've read through the thread but my head started to hurt, so I'll just note how I would understand these if I read them cold.
1) There is no assumption either way as to how beautiful the two cities are, but Prague is not the more beautiful of the two.
2) There is an understanding that they are both beautiful cities, and although Prague is not clearly more beautiful, there isn't a lot to choose between them.

However, my knowledge of these cities may be influencing me.
A different context:
3a) "This Blotville is an ugly town, I'm moving to Smeartown".
3b) "But Smeartown is no more beautiful than Blotville!"
(That is, Smeartown is at least as ugly as Blotville)

So (2) would be my natural reading, but (3a) sets up a different one.

fivejedjon said:

From the time that self-appointed arbiters started writing grammars, people have attempted to impose mathematical logic on the language.

Click to expand...

"Self-appointed arbiters" sounds terribly condesceding to me. From the time of early Indian grammarians (or before) many great minds have attempted to understand the role of logic in natural languages. I'm sure that you're not denying that natural languages have logic.

Some of their efforts succeeded, in the formal written language, at least; others failed. The rule against the emphatic double negative was one of their successes ( though it lives on in speech in some dialects), the 'shall/will' future one of their failures. Points not finally decided include the 'rule' against splitting the infinitive, and the use of the subjunctive in modern BrE.

Click to expand...

I don't see what the shall/will future has to do with our original problem. I understand you're referring to prescriptive grammarians now and that you're saying that some of their prescriptions have survived and some haven't. What does it tell us about the existence and importance of logic in natural languages? You didn't agree with Philo's statement that most of our utterances are logical. I don't have the data you'd like to see -- I have little knowledge about the problem. However, the assumption that logic could not be the fundament of language is, in my opinion, so bold that it requires defence, as opposed to its negation.

If the language followed the rules of logic, there would be no irregular verbs, prepositions would all have one 'meaning', all adverbs would end in 'ly', ...

Click to expand...

Again, I see no apparent and irrefutable connection between logic and irregular verbs, meanings of prepositions or adverbial suffixes. It's clearly not illogical that some adverbs do not end in "-ly" -- it's only complicated.

You were saying about mathematical logic. It's evident that mathematical logic is a strongly simplified version of the kind of logic we use in English, Polish or whichever natural language. We cannot apply mathematical logic to them for many reasons, of which I probably know only several, as I'm not a specialist. But it shouldn't discourage us from trying to understand how logic works there.

I would like to understand your opinion better. Now, I'm not really sure what you were suggesting, so perhaps my post is missing the point completely.

BC: "Self-appointed arbiters" sounds terribly condescending to me.
5jj: Intentionally so. Writers such as Lowth, Murray, Cobbett and many others, presented their views on correct usage as if they were fact. Actually, their opinions, and that is all they were, were based on their own dialect and /or logic.

BC: From the time of early Indian grammarians (or before) many great minds have attempted to understand the role of logic in natural languages. I'm sure that you're not denying that natural languages have logic.
5jj: Yes, I am.
From the time of the early Indian grammarians, many people have tried to find ways to describe how languages are used, and have devised systems of 'rules' that are quite useful in this. However, logic is something invented by humans, and has its purposes, but not necessarily in language. I see no reason why natural languages should be supposed to have logic any more than the human body.

I don't see what the shall/will future has to do with our original problem.
For many years, writers on grammar insisted that the English future tense was constructed with 'shall' for the first persons singular and plural, 'will' for other persons.The logic behind this was that classical languages had a future tense and that therefore English must have one, and that the differences in meanings of these two verbs necessitated the rule. This logic ignores the fact English does not have a future tense, and that most speakers of modern English do not feel the shall/will difference in the prescribed way.

BC: However, the assumption that logic could not be the fundament of language is, in my opinion, so bold that it requires defence, as opposed to its negation.
5jj: The assumption that logic is the fundament of language is, in my opinion, so bold that it requires defence, as opposed to its negation.

BC: You were saying about mathematical logic. It's evident that mathematical logic is a strongly simplified version of the kind of logic we use in English, Polish or whichever natural language.
5jj: I am afraid that it is not evident to me.

BC: We cannot apply mathematical logic to them for many reasons, of which I probably know only several, as I'm not a specialist.
5jj: That is more or less what I am saying:

BC: But it shouldn't discourage us from trying to understand how logic works in there.
5jj: I spend most of my free time trying to understand the systems of the English language. Sometimes I even use the words 'logic/logically' informally in talking about some paricular language systems. However, I don't think that applying the rules of formal logic has any real value in deciding on the acceptability of structures in language. It may help professional writers and speakers, especially the former, to ensure that the message they wish to convey is clealy understood. That is a different matter. Dangling particles and misplaced 'only's upset some (I don't like them, myself), but they are natural in the language of many speakers, and no ambiguity results.

fivejedjon said:

5jj: Intentionally so. Writers such as Lowth, Murray, Cobbett and many others, presented their views on correct usage as if they were fact. Actually, their opinions, and that is all they were, were based on their own dialect and /or logic.

Click to expand...

Presenting one's views on correct usage and trying to understand what logic is and how it works are two different things. I still don't understand why you keep conjuring those ghosts.

5jj: Yes, I am.
From the time of the early Indian grammarians, many people have tried to find ways to describe how languages are used, and have devised systems of 'rules' that are quite useful in this. However, logic is something invented by humans, and has its purposes, but not necessarily in language. I see no reason why natural languages should be supposed to have logic any more than the human body.

Click to expand...

What does the word "logic" mean to you, 5jj?

I will try try to address the other points after I get a response to this question.

JMurray said:

1) Prague isn’t more beautiful than Paris.
2) Prague is no more beautiful than Paris.

As a late entry in the tale of two cities. I've read through the thread but my head started to hurt, so I'll just note how I would understand these if I read them cold.
1) There is no assumption either way as to how beautiful the two cities are, but Prague is not the more beautiful of the two.
2) There is an understanding that they are both beautiful cities, and although Prague is not clearly more beautiful, there isn't a lot to choose between them.

However, my knowledge of these cities may be influencing me.
A different context:
3a) "This Blotville is an ugly town, I'm moving to Smeartown".
3b) "But Smeartown is no more beautiful than Blotville!"
(That is, Smeartown is at least as ugly as Blotville)

So (2) would be my natural reading, but (3a) sets up a different one.

Click to expand...

2. makes no sense to me. If you say "The chip is no bigger than a grain of rice", the understanding is that they're both small, not big. Why wouldn't the meaning be also "the opposite", so to speak, for the above?

And if they're both equally beautiful, why not say "Prague is as beautiful as Paris".

The only reference to this I found was here, not that I looked far.

:-D

birdeen's call said:

Presenting one's views on correct usage and trying to understand what logic is and how it works are two different things. I still don't understand why you keep conjuring those ghosts.

Click to expand...

Ghosts? What ghosts am I conjuring?

Philo used the word 'logically' in talking about meaning, and I responded to this. He later gave his view on my response, and I responded to that.

I stated, "Languages do not always follow the rules of formal logic".

You asked me if I was denying that natural languages have logic, and I responded.

Ghosts?

What does the word "logic" mean to you, 5jj?

Click to expand...

Something like, 'the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference." (COD)

fivejedjon said:

Ghosts?

Click to expand...

The ghosts of prescriptive grammarians. I can't understand what their accomplishments or lack thereof have to do with the existence of logic in languages.

Something like, 'the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference." (COD)

Click to expand...

Thank you. As you surely know there are several branches of logic. Mathematical logic is only one of them.

BC: We cannot apply mathematical logic to them for many reasons, of which I probably know only several, as I'm not a specialist.
5jj: That is more or less what I am saying:

Click to expand...

So you are saying that mathematical logic cannot be applied to natural languages. If that's true, then I agree with you. But you also said:

I'm sure that you're not denying that natural languages have logic.
5jj: Yes, I am.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about logic or mathematical logic then? I agree with you (and COD) that logic is the study of inference. Of course if we focus on the word "study" then it's been indeed invented by humans. But the word "logic" is also used to denote "the right use of reason in the inquiry after truth". Do you find it inappropriate to call illogical the following reasoning?

Tom is taller than me. Therefore, I am shorter than Tom.

Would you rather say that logic has nothing to do with its acceptability? You say

However, I don't think that applying the rules of formal logic has any real value in deciding on the acceptability of structures in language. It may help professional writers and speakers, especially the former, to ensure that the message they wish to convey is clealy understood.

Click to expand...

Right. The two sentences I have given are acceptable structures of language. We weren't discussing linguistic acceptability though. We were discussing logic. The reasoning is illogical (at least I consider it such and, in my opinion, most people would) even though it's not expressed in a formal language. It would have been illogical before the invention of mathematical logic.