3

An example question of the usage of little to no: Idiom to describe something that has little to no effect?

I understand that the phrase little to no effect means little effect, or worst, no effect. But do we have a contrastive phrase? I guess big to all?

Note: I would like to know the contrastive phrase of little to no in general, not little to no effort. I see there is an usage of little to no respect.

Community
  • 1
Ooker
  • 3,086
  • 4
    Don't think there is a perfect opposite of it...I'd use 'large or total effect' –  Feb 08 '15 at 08:34
  • Actually that's not exactly what the phrase means. It's closer to "effect so negligibly little it may as well be non-existent" – blgt Feb 08 '15 at 09:26
  • I've never come across such a phrase. In the same way that there's no (satisfactory) opposite to "negligible" as a word, I've never seen an idiom that would contrast this one. – sqrtbottle Feb 08 '15 at 09:44
  • The idiom with which I am familiar is little or no. – WS2 Feb 08 '15 at 09:58
  • The main issue is that while there is a good, common term for 'no effect', there 'total effect' is far less common and sounds a little odd. It's a little hard to quantify the maximum amount of effort in comparison to how easy it is to quantify that there is none. The closest that sounds reasonable to me would be 'maximal (or as close as makes no difference) effort' (although, it's obviously verbose). – Latty Feb 08 '15 at 11:57
  • 1
    'Opposites' of 'negligible' could range from 'appreciable' ... 'considerable' through 'major' to 'overwhelming'. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 08 '15 at 12:57

4 Answers4

4

If you are not satisfied with substantial ( I owe this to Oldbag) may I then suggest second-to-none; second to none. An example: wild honey has little to no benefit for chest allergy but Frankincense herbal extract is second to none for curing it.

sojourner
  • 3,533
  • It might work, but I have no idea why it works. Can you explain that? – Ooker Feb 08 '15 at 16:18
  • 1
    @ Ooker It might work in the sense that (little to no) refers to the smallest X and (second to none) refers to the biggest X--- so to speak. – sojourner Feb 08 '15 at 17:44
  • I know. I mean, why does second to none can refer to the biggest X? – Ooker Feb 09 '15 at 01:36
  • 1
    @Ooker Because second to non is not inferior to any.It is the best; the largest; the biggest---or if you may the largest in the total. – sojourner Feb 09 '15 at 02:26
  • Ahhh, I get it now. It means "X is not the second to anything, therefore X is the largest". I'm thinking about how does second contrast to little, and it's pretty clear that none doesn't contrast to no. – Ooker Feb 09 '15 at 03:29
2

You can say, "...a substantial effect", "...a measurable effect", "...an obvious effect" - any idioms that might be applicable would depend on the particulars of the situation. You might say, "'X' really turned it around."

Oldbag
  • 13,256
  • Thanks for your answer. However, I am expecting something like large to total or large or total – Ooker Feb 08 '15 at 11:42
0

I don't think there is a true equivalent, due to the nature of effort.

"little to no effort" is common because of the potentially for pedantry when it comes to claiming no effort whatsoever. Consider the exchange where a teacher says a child put in no effort, and the child counters with the fact of them writing their name proving some (if negligable) effort.

On the other hand, maximum effort is poorly defined. While no effort means doing absolutely nothing towards the task at hand, putting in total effort is hard to pin down, and the difference is far less likely to be argued. Even terms for maximum possible effort are relatively unusual (maximum and total both sound odd). There are a few phrases that are more common such as "giving 100%/evertything/it all/all you've got" or "doing your best". Terms for almost maximum to be equivalent to the little are even less prevelant.

The closest I can get while sounding natural would be:

giving everything (or as close as makes no difference)

Generally, one would just use a term for a lot of effort, or one of the 'maximum effort' terms suggested above. I can't think of a situation where it's necessary or natural to specific close to maximum effort.

Edit: The same is essentially true of most things. Let's take betting, betting almost everything to everything still sounds pretty awkward. If we reuse:

Despite his confidence, he bet little to nothing on the outcome of the game.

Because of his confidence, he went all in (or as close as makes no difference) on the outcome of the game.

I can't think of anything better generically. If you are willing to stray a little 'effectively' might work, E.g: 'effectively going all in'. The effectively has the meaning of close enough to be the same, which gives mostly the same impression.

Community
  • 1
Latty
  • 208
  • Thank you so much. However I would like to know the contrastive phrase of little to no in general, not little to no effort. Please see my update. – Ooker Feb 08 '15 at 12:29
  • @Ooker I think the 'or as close as makes no difference' is the best you will do generically. The same problem with effort exists with everything I can think of where 'almost all' and 'all' are generally much less different and more blurred concepts than 'almost none' and 'none'. – Latty Feb 08 '15 at 12:36
0

Consider the term virtually combined with an adjective

[AS SUBMODIFIER] Nearly; almost:

virtually all those arrested were accused

the college became virtually bankrupt

Oxford Dictionaries Online

The word is used as an adverb and frequently combined with adjectives that reflect an absolute or superlative condition, such as all, every, perfect, complete, dead, and similar terms.

It connotes being so close to the absolute as to be effectively indistinguishable from it.

bib
  • 72,782