I am looking for a comprehensive analysis of these three constructions:

  1. ... for no other reason than X.
  2. ... for no other reason that X.
  3. ... for no other reason than that X.

Which is used when? Is this a question of register, dialect, style? How does the usage depend on what X is? Which of the constructions is the oldest, and what is the linguistic reasoning behind the other two variations coming about and happily co-existing — reanalysis, corruption, eggcorning?

I searched the Language Log, but to no avail. Google is of no real help, either — it returns few promising results, which upon closer examination turn out to be unrelated to the question at hand.

1 Answer 1


It seems to me that

For no other reason than

takes a nominal complement, and if what follows is a NP (eg your intransigence) it is simply used.

When the complement is a clause, it needs the complementiser "that", (eg that I want to)

Your number 2, on the face of it, makes no sense to me, but I would be quite prepared to believe that people say it for number 3.

  • Well, if we can replace X with anything at all, (2) could be valid for no other reason that I can think of. The other two seem to be exactly as you say. Commented Oct 26, 2012 at 12:37
  • Yes, but that that is simply a relative pronoun, and not in construction with no other reason; one could use either which, or Zero, instead. Commented Oct 26, 2012 at 16:51

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.