no more than three things

Doesn't this mean "only three things" not "not more than three things = 1 or 2 or 3"? So isn't the distinction between "no more than" and "not more than" clear?

gu66)People are able to concentrate on several items at a time if those items are of the same color, according to research. That's why players at major sporting events wear identical uniforms. It enables the spectators to overcome human' natural limit of tracking no more than three things at once...

no more than three thing at once means 1 or 2 or 3 and i think there is no distinction. they are the same.

I don't think so, they are different!

Hi, these two phrases are often seen in the examinations.

Yes. "no more than" is "only" and "not more than" is "as much as"

I have no less than $5,000 today.( = I have as much as $5,000 today.)
We had no less than / no fewer than 250 guests at the party.( = We had as many as 250 guests at the party.)

death said:

"no more than three things at once" means 1 or 2 or 3 and i think there is no distinction. they are the same.

Click to expand...

Your profile says that you are an English teacher. Please use correct capitalisation, punctuation and spelling in your posts. Learners believe that what is posted here by teachers is correct. We normally write in words numbers up to 'ten'.

keannu said:

I don't think so, they are different!

Click to expand...

No, they aren't. "No more than three" means 0, 1, 2 or 3.

"Not more than three" means 0, 1, 2 or 3.

Are you sure? If what you said is true, I have been interpreting so many "no more than" wrong so far.

What do you think "no more than three" means?

"Only three", but some Americans seem to think it as same as "not more than", which gives me the idea of variety or diversity of language.

Where did you get the idea that it means "only three?" The language sets an upper limit.

No more than three = Not more than three.
Three is the maximum number of whatever we're talking about. There could be one, two or three, but no more.

You can bring no more than three guests to the party.
means:
You can come alone, or you can bring one, two or three guests to the party. You cannot bring four, five etc guests.

In other threads about this kind of topic, I have seen that "no more than" is different from "not more than", and now I find quite the opposite here. I feel ashamed of having lied to Koreans about this so far, and I feel a great pity on that.

If you can find those threads and give the links to them, I would like to read them.

If "no more than" is equal to "not more than", then should the following examples be corrected?

1.She is no more than a whore (ie she is as bad as a whore, before) => She is equal to or less than a whore(now)
2.She is no less than a saint (ie she is as good as a saint, before) => She is equal to or more than a saint.(now)
3.She is no more beautiful than Liz Taylor.(She is as beautiful as Liz Taylor, before) => She is equally beautiful or less beautiful than Liz Talyor.(now)

* "Before" means my previous interpretation, while "now", the current interpretation according to your advice.
* I'll try to find the related threads and let you know later.

My grammar book says the following.
ex)I have no more than 2 dollars. Treat me! (no more than = only)
I have no less than 50 dollars. I'll treat you. = I have as much as 50 dollars.

If this is a fake, and they have faked me so far, I'd bettet abandon this book. I don't know where they got this idea and wrote this. Did Korean or Japanese grammar book writers create their own English grammar?

keannu said:

If "no more than" is equal to "not more than", then should the following examples be corrected?

1.She is no more than a whore (ie she is as bad as a whore, before) => She is equal to or less than a whore(now)
2.She is no less than a saint (ie she is as good as a saint, before) => She is equal to or more than a saint.(now)
3.She is no more beautiful than Liz Taylor.(She is as beautiful as Liz Taylor, before) => She is equally beautiful or less beautiful than Liz Talyor.(now)

* "Before" means my previous interpretation, while "now", the current interpretation according to your advice.
* I'll try to find the related threads and let you know later.

Click to expand...

There is really not a lot of difference when you are not talking about numbers. For instance, #1 is basically saying that she is a whore and nothing more than that.

#2 says she is a saint or even better.

When discussing numbers the value given is a limit, as we have said earlier. If you have "no more than 2 dollars" then 2 dollars is the maximum you have. You might have less.

keannu said:

"Only three", but some Americans seem to think it as same as "not more than", which gives me the idea of variety or diversity of language.

Click to expand...

I don't think being American has anything to do with it. They mean the same.

1. Thanks a lot! I admit that I have been perceiving the difference between "no more than" and "not more than" wrong so far, but I have one last question regarding 1 to 3. Numbers can have boundary, so I can estimate the range.
But for 1 to 3 above, as you said,
in 1, does it mean "she<= whore" or just "she = whore"? If you want to say equality, you would say "she is as bad as a whore". What is the difference between "She is no more than a whore" and "she is as bad as a whore"?
I'd like to ask the same thing for 2 and 3, but if I know 1, 2 and 3 will be automatically solved.

2. Can I also ignore and disregard so many grammar books' description in Korea like this? I don't know where they got this idea.
I have no more than 2 dollars. Treat me! (no more than = only)
I have no less than 50 dollars. I'll treat you. = I have as much as 50 dollars.

Not many will worry about such a fine point. The gist is that you are saying she is a whore. Technically, it is saying that she is, at best, a whore.