What does the phrase mean in "He annoys me to no end"?

Literally, does it mean that he annoys me forever? Or does it mean that he annoys me to no result?


7 Answers 7


As I learned the phrase, it's simply he annoys me no end, meaning (literally) without limit and (actually) a great deal. He annoys me to no end would mean 'without any purpose', but since most people aren't annoying deliberately, I can't see how the phrase would be useful.

  • 5
    "I can't see how the phrase would be useful" - As a native speaker of English: the fact of the matter is that the phrase is used. "Since most people aren't annoying deliberately" - I guess you haven't met my siblings and coworkers :)
    – dj18
    Commented May 31, 2012 at 13:44
  • @dj18: there are hundreds of millions of native speakers of English, so undoubtedly some of them use it. But I still think it not useful comnpared with annoy me no end. Commented May 31, 2012 at 13:55
  • 1
    To what end? Commented May 31, 2012 at 14:55
  • 2
    I often hear "annoys me to no end". I can't say which is more common.
    – Jay
    Commented May 31, 2012 at 21:46

The OED discusses no end in the context of end, which is noted as of Old English/Saxon origins to mean 1a. "the extremity or outermost part (in any direction) of a portion of space, or of anything extended in space; utmost limit," and 1b. "a limit of magnitude or multitude." No end is defined as a colloquialism that means "a vast quantity or number (of)," and in modern slang as "‘immensely’, ‘to any extent’; and (with of) qualifying a predicate." The provided example quotes are below.

  • 1623 J. Bingham tr. Xenophon Hist. 143 You‥made no end of promises.
  • 1856 C. Reade Never too Late x, Box at the opera costs no end.
  • 1859 F. W. Farrar Eric 55 You are no end cleverer and stronger.
  • 1866 Trollope Belton Estate III. v. 121 What comfort have I in a big house, and no end of gardens?
  • 1871 F. C. Burnand More Happy Thoughts (ed. 2) xix. 143 He ‘makes no end of stuff’, or ‘loses no end of stuff’‥on the Derby.
  • 1872 E. Peacock Mabel Heron I. i. 9 You will have no end of trouble.
  • 1883 W. Besant All in Garden Fair viii, Keats was no end of a fellow.
  • 1909 R. E. Knowles Attic Guest 54 You'll have no end of fun with him.
  • 1912 Chambers's Jrnl. Dec. 769/1 ‘I really must show this to Champneys,’ thought Michael; ‘it will please him no end.’
  • 1955 Ess. & Stud. 8 5 A few clean strokes of Occam's razor would have helped Mr. Jackson no end.
  • 1958 H. Babcock I don't want to shoot Elephant 8, I often walk fifteen miles a day while hunting.‥ This puzzles my wife no end.
  • 1970 New Yorker 3 Oct. 90/2 Thomas had been impressed no end by the sight of Klüver‥fixing an art-and-technology malfunction with a pair of pliers.
  • 1
    Although admirably academic, this answer would seem to be wholly superfluous, as it does not point out the overwhelming reality that "to no end" here is, of course and obviously, a mis-speaking of "no end." note that this answer could, thus, be wildly confusing, indeed hugely misdirecting, to for example non-native speakers who do not know either idiom.
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:10

It isn't difficult to invent a sentence that combines "no end" and "to no end" in their traditional idiomatic senses. Perhaps looking at such a sentence would help clarify why treating the two as equivalent in meaning isn't particularly desirable as a way to achieve immediate coherence. Here's an example:

The government spent no end of money on institutional reforms, to no end.

In this sentence "no end of money" means "a vast amount of money from a seemingly endless supply of the stuff," and "to no end" means "to no purpose" or "without positive effect."

If we shift now to the poster's sentence about an annoying person, we see that

He annoys me no end.

seamlessly employs the "endlessly" sense of the unadorned phrase "no end." In contrast, the wording

He annoys me to no end.

would be suitable for a situation where someone comes to your door and tries to get you to buy magazines subscriptions that you don't want so that he can earn points toward some sort of fabulous (and perhaps imaginary) prize. He annoys you, but you don't buy the magazines, so all his salesmanship is to no avail—or "to no end."

But many people (in the United States, anyway) say "to no end" when they mean simply "no end." In my opinion, this wording gratuitously muddies the waters of comprehension, and in a better world people wouldn't do it; but in our world it appears to be establishing itself quite comfortably. Here is an Ngram chart comparing the frequency of "annoys me no end" (blue line) and the frequency of "annoys me to no end" (red line) for the period 1900–2007:

A Google Books search for "annoys me no end" yields two matches from 1938—from John Klempner, No Storks at Nine and from Mental Hygiene, volume 22. The first match for "annoys me to no end" appears in a 1964 issue of The Broadside of Boston, seemingly in a letter to the editor.

Anyway, language being what it is, we are left to do our best to clear up ambiguities flowing from the confusing usage when we see them and are in a position to make things more lucid. As Henry Fowler wrote on another occasion in Modern English Usage (1926):

What grammarians say should be has perhaps less influence on what shall be than even the most modest of them realize; usage evolves itself little disturbed by their likes and dislikes. And yet the temptation to show how better use might have been made of the material to hand is sometimes irresistible.

  • Although admirably academic, this answer does not point out the overwhelming reality that "to no end" here is, of course and obviously, a mis-speaking of "no end." (ie, Sven just assumes this, does not spell it out, and moves on with a superb exploration of that.) Note that this answer could, thus, be wildly confusing, indeed hugely misdirecting, to for example non-native speakers who do not know either idiom.
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:13
  • @JoeBlow: No, it isn't. Sven gives an excellent explanation of how either idiom could have been intended, and what each of them could have meant, in the context of the original question. +1
    – user11752
    Commented Aug 27, 2015 at 17:04

It means that he annoys you a lot. To no end usually means 'a great deal', or 'with no end in sight'. In this case, the first meaning will apply.

  • 2
    -1 I believe we need to research the origin of the term to authoritatively comment on its literal meaning. I don't think your answer addresses the "literal" aspect of the term that the question is asking about.
    – zooone9243
    Commented May 31, 2012 at 11:06
  • 1
    Nor is it correct, though it does participate in the common misreading of the idiom no end as to no end. But to no end means 'without effect', while no end means 'without ceasing'. This is one reason why so many people get irritated with the superfluous to. Commented May 20, 2015 at 15:57

Gosh ! - how animated we get about our language (inevitably) evolving !

USAish (which calls itself English, even when it departs from being "pertaining to England or its folk" so far as to invent other ways to refer to my native vernacular, rather than finding another word for itself, when the differences matter) has been growing a tendency to insert (formerly superfluous) prepositions into phrases ("of" being now a widespread insertion after "outside", "inside" and kindred words, for example) that didn't have them when I was young (and the Beatles had short hair-cuts).

A few decades ago, "to no end" meant "without achieving any useful result" and "no end" meant "endless(ly)". I still use these phrases only with those meanings (because that's what I grew up with); but I understand folk who use the former idiom with the latter meaning. It does irk me a little, but the first rule of the English language is "if your audience knows what you mean, you succeeded" and the second is "if you understood what the speaker meant, they said it well enough". I doubt there are any other rules worthy of note.

This novel (and ambiguating) use of "to no end" may have started as a mis-expression (whether written or spoken) but it is coming (along with those other "stray" prepositions) to be a marker of "modern USAish" affiliation among speakers within the Anglic group. Every culture desperately needs its markers of identity; let them have them. I shall continue speaking English (or, at least, calling the language I speak "English"); I suppose others from England shall invent their own markers and depart from the language of my youth; maybe I shall adopt some of those (as I have done with USAish's wonderfully clarifying use of "through" as in "from first through last"), but I shall accept my neglect of the rest as just another marker - of my antiquity. That doesn't make my "English" any more (or less) "valid" than theirs, or than what I call "USAish"; it's just another thread in the eternal messy braid that makes up the language and its evolution.

Language changes, languages diverge; evolution happens.

  • I neglected to mention: when reading old texts, if you see an author using "to no end", I'm confident you shall find that reading it to mean "futilely" will give you a reading that makes sense; some would also make sense with "endlessly", although I contend that wasn't any old author's intent. It's only in relatively recent (internet-era, at a guess) texts that you'll find the former reading failing to make sense, with the author unambiguously meaning the latter. The modern usage may well have arisen from no end of echoing by folk who had misunderstood the older usage.
    – Eddy
    Commented Nov 14, 2017 at 8:20

In English (as in other languages, I am sure), we do not like to repeat words or phrases too often. In this case, "to no end" makes sense as well, because the rest is implied. "He annoys me to no end (of my annoyance)." In other words, there is no end to his annoying behavior.

At least, that is my understanding of using the phrase in that way.

Better usage may be "He annoys me without end." Or, perhaps, "He annoys me ceaselessly."

Still, language is not perfect, especially English because it derives from so many sources, and we have to take into account the native languages from which it evolved. Phraseology, adjective placement, etc. all vary so much between those sources, it is no wonder that we find strange usages and what we might consider as "odd" ways of putting things.

  • The first paragraph is completely wrong. In the second paragraph you explain why it is wrong. Your third paragraph is correct. Your fourth paragraph is wrong: the speaker misspoke.
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:15
  • 3
    Thank you for your useless comment. The purpose is to determine the speaker's intended usage. The present tense of the verb gives us a very good clue: the action is either currently happening, or ongoing. If the verb had been past tense, the speaker would likely have meant that the person annoyed him without effect. Just to reiterate, my comment is not to make a judgment either way, but to explain why it sounds correct, can possibly be used correctly, depending on the speaker and setting.
    – brainfood
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:20

"to no end"

means "pointless". Why are we doing this work? To no end!

"no end"

simply means "a lot" or "endlessly". "He annoys me to no end." quite simply means he annoys me a lot, he annoys me endlessly.

The sentence 'He annoys me to no end' is simply a mis-speaking, or a typo.

It's just that simple. It's meant to be "He annoys me no end." it's a typo, or if spoken, a mis-speaking.

It's incredibly common in spoken language that people will confuse idioms. There is simply nothing more to it than that.

  • -1, for the assumption that it was definitely a mistake (and the apparent misunderstanding of what a typo is.) The rest of the answer is quite good (including the point that people can confuse idioms.)
    – user11752
    Commented Aug 27, 2015 at 17:07
  • Hey Mark - is your point that (you magically know :) ) the OP was referring to spoken, not written, speech? I appreciate your point, and you may note that I use either "typo" or "mis-spoken" throughout the discussion here. Actually, I'd say with such questions on this site, it's perhaps common to just type "typo" or "mis-speaking" (I mean, one or the other) rather than typing out in full "was a typo or mis-speaking" -- if you see what I mean.
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 27, 2015 at 19:51
  • Regarding your raising the point that, in theory as it were, it may NOT HAVE BEEN a misspeaking. ie, some extremely sophisticated person was using "to no end" where only "no end" works - much as, say, I have just used the word "aks" rather than "ask" in this sentence for convoluted reasons. There is an ongoing problem on this site where a new English speaker will ask a question: "Is _ _ _ a typo?" answer, "Yes, of course it's a typo - nicely spotted." But then someone (I won't mention any initials in the present case ... M. B. !!!! :) ) says "oh, obscurely, it may actually be meant." So...
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 27, 2015 at 19:53
  • ...well you get my point. So, that's a danger on this site. There are numerous examples of it. There are so many it's almost a google category ... english.stackexchange.com/questions/250961/what-is-a-lemus .. english.stackexchange.com/questions/230388/… english.stackexchange.com/questions/205892/… etc etc etc (I just searched on my own ranting on the topic, endless other examples...)
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 27, 2015 at 19:59
  • Not really. The point about typos was not the main point (which is why that point was parenthesised). The main point was that you magically knew that it must have been a misstatement.
    – user11752
    Commented Aug 27, 2015 at 23:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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