English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The following is the full sentence:

One could argue, convincingly, that this is no big deal and that I'm just a whiner.

share|improve this question
up vote 8 down vote accepted

As the New Oxford American English reports, no (used as adjective) means not any.

There is no excuse.
No two plants are alike.

share|improve this answer
So "not any two plants are alike"? – delete Sep 5 '10 at 1:01
@Shinto, it is awkward, but not ungrammatical, at least to me. You can’t presume that any word can be replaced by a dictionary definition and have the result always be perfectly normal-sounding. – nohat Sep 5 '10 at 3:04
@nohat: I don't think "not any two plants are alike" is understandable, let alone grammatical. My guess is that "no two .. alike" is a construction on its own. There is no "no three" construction or similar. – delete Sep 5 '10 at 3:26
@Shinto: why wouldn't there be no "no three" constructions? What about: "What is the probability that no three consecutive letters are alike"; or: "In the Bengali alphabet no three letters are alike in sound except the three sibilants" see this wiki article; or even the ominous: "no five fingers are alike" see Google. They all fit the same adjective use of "no" in the meaning of "not any". – Abel Sep 5 '10 at 12:05
@Abel: OK I concede that there can be "no three" constructions but why you want to force this to mean "not any" I have no idea. – delete Sep 5 '10 at 13:39

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.