3

In one English student's book i encountered the following sentence:
"The weather was no obstacle to my expeditions."

As i understand the essential constrain is:
[1] Subject + is + no + noun

Apparently it's a kind of negation. But i can't find any grammar rule for this constrain.

It's similar to "The weather was not an obstacle to my expeditions.":
[2] Subject + is + not + a + noun

Or "The weather had no obstacle to my expeditions.":
[3] Subject + has + no + noun

But seems it doesn't fit into them. What a grammar constrain is it? Which one of ([2] or [3]) constrains is it closer to?

Araucaria - Him
  • 47,146
Markus Marvell
  • 191
  • 1
    The verb "to be" is descriptive, and usually when the word "no" follows the verb, the word "no" is also descriptive. So, imagine it being worded "It was a non-obstacle..." –  Sep 23 '16 at 09:28
  • the word "not" is much more definitive than the word "no" in this case, so if it is still unclear, think "It was a non-obstacle-ish" or furthermore "It was a non-obstacle-ish-ly-al" (<-you will never see that butcher of a word in a sentence ever again by the way. That word is 100% made-up) –  Sep 23 '16 at 09:40
  • 1
    Another way to say it is that "not" in combo with the verb "to be" can be compared to the mathematical term "not equal to," as opposed to the word "no" in combo with the verb "to be" can be compared to the phrase "not equal to in description." For example, you can say "She was no woman," and that would mean that she is simply a masculine female, or you could say "She was not a woman," and that would mean that she is flat-out a male. –  Sep 23 '16 at 09:43
  • 2
    "Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy" – Mitch Sep 23 '16 at 12:25
  • 1
    @DaMaxContent English verbs aren't descriptive; that's for modifiers. Verbs give actions or states. No isn't descriptive either; it's a determinative. See Araucaria's answer. Whether no or not is more "definitive" is a matter of context. I'd say That was no* victory* is a stronger denial than That was not* a victory. She was not a woman* could mean that she is flat-out a tigress. Other than that, I kinda like non-obstacle-ish, so it did appear in another sentence. – deadrat Sep 23 '16 at 14:27
  • @Helmar That question is about meaning. This question is about grammar. I don't think they are dupes. :) – Araucaria - Him Sep 23 '16 at 14:48
  • @deadrat thank you. the more you know, the more you grow. –  Sep 24 '16 at 02:50

1 Answers1

4

The word no is a determinative in English. Determiners are words like a, the, this and so forth which usually occur in Determiner function within noun phrases. You can sometimes think of the word no as being the equivalent of the number zero. It is rare for us in English to say:

  • I have [zero time]

or

  • I have [zero pens]

We prefer to use the negative determinative no instead:

  • I have [no time]
  • I have [no pens]

Notice that the word no belongs with the noun phrase, not with the verb. Using a negative determiner in this way can make the polarity of the sentence negative. For this reason the meaning of the sentences above is similar to what we would see if we make the verb phrase negative and didn't use negation within the following noun phrase:

  • I don't have [time]
  • I don't have [any pens]

In short, The weather was no obstacle to my expeditions has the same literal meaning as The weather was not an obstacle to my expeditions. However, the first may be seen as being more emphatic. It seems to suggest that the listener might have expected the weather to be an obstacle, but it wasn't.

Araucaria - Him
  • 47,146
  • I'm slightly confused yet. First part of the explanation appears to be about 'no' as 'zero quantity'. Than 'To have zero pens' has sense. But "To be zero pens" looks strange. And in the second part you virtually say "Subj is not a something" = "Subj is no something". How do those parts relate to each other? And from the second part of explanation follows that there should be some grammar rule in English that sates something like this: 'It is a table' (affirmative); 'It is not a table' (Negative) = 'It is no table'. But i can't find such a rule. – Markus Marvell Sep 23 '16 at 11:17
  • @MarkusMarvell Maybe the 'zero' thing is not so helpful after all. no negates a noun, not a verb. Often it does not matter which you negate. – Araucaria - Him Sep 23 '16 at 11:30
  • Than is it possible to say: 'It is no table' in meaning of 'It is not a table'? It's just new to me. Sorry for my persistence. – Markus Marvell Sep 23 '16 at 11:35
  • 1
    @MarkusMarvell When used as the complement of the verb BE like that, it has the effect of being very emphatic. So we would only tend to say that if the speaker wanted to say it was a table and we wanted to express our profound disagreement. It would sound similar to It is not a table in any way at all. – Araucaria - Him Sep 23 '16 at 11:44
  • some great usages of this construction in movie history: https://youtu.be/JGp_5gOww0E?t=70 and https://youtu.be/dQ_-rmuPZC4?t=99 The second uses both forms and thus utilises a nice play on words. – Max Williams Sep 23 '16 at 14:43