6

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.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

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.

Improve this answer
2
  • 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.
    – FumbleFingers
    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.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Oct 26, 2012 at 16:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .