What kind of word is no here: [[#English|No'[]]]]]]</nowiki>]]]]'''''
There was no water left?
It seems not to be mentioned yet...
- Linguistically that would be a determiner but most dictinaries use few classes and so would probably call it an adverb.
- Of course the most common use is as an interjection - and none of the senses in this article are marked as such! Hippietrail 23:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I wouldn't think it a determiner but rather a quantifier. In any case it'd be a subtype of adjective, not an adverb... —Muke Tever 22:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Almost all the translations for the adverb no include both a correct translation, but also a translation for the interjection mentioned in the section above. In most of them, the latter is labelled (1), even though this is wrong. Example: Both meanings (1) and (2) of no are kein in German, yet it claims that (1) was nein, which is incorrect. I can fix it for some of the languages, but someone more knowledgeable should fix it for everything. — Timwi 21:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Plural of no (n.)
On seeing the following headline in the online Economist:
The winner from the French and Dutch noes
I was struck by the oddness of the plural spelling. Of course, it’s not a word that one often has cause to pluralize. So I did a little checking on the web and came up with the following two web-pages:
A page on Ask Oxford which deals with the use of apostrophes in pluralization. It says in point 4. that apostrophes can be used, for clarity, in the pluralization of very short words such as do, ex and yes. But it also says that dos, exes and yesses are acceptable. It goes on to specifically say that the usual plural of no is noes.
A discussion on the website WritersNet on the pluralization. The original poster asked for comments on how to pluralize No. His own suggestions were Nos, No’s and “No”s. Someone suggested that Noes was given as correct in a dictionary but a common response from other posters was how weird that spelling looked (sharing my reaction). The original poster responded, however, that he saw how Noes made sense by analogy to potatoes and tomatoes.
Our own wiktionary article gives noes as the plural. However, I note that on this very talk page at the top of the page Henryk911 has written “different nos”.
So in summary, there seems to be three different ways to pluralize the word — nos, noes and no’s— along with an interesting workaround in “No”s. I'm not interested in prescribing a particular version as correct (although my natural instinct is to write no’s). I simply wanted to make a note of what I had found on this point and invite comment. Oska 00:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
something ain't right
It is strange: no claims to be an interjection, while yes claims to be an adverb. There should be some compatability between our entries for yes and no. Otherwise it is silly. --Dangherous 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This page has been repeatedly moved to Talk:no/bad due to MW software detecting unicode characters outside of accepted character ranges. If anyone knows what characters those are, please remove them from this page. --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Found some unusual CJK punctuation and removed it. Let’s see if it’s okay now. —Stephen 12:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Kept. See archived discussion of March 2008. 06:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No in Ewe
The pronunciation of No in Ewe is given as /nəʊ/. That is obviously taken from the English no entry by some well-meaning person who is not familiar with IPA and has been deceived that the o in no is the same as the long o sound in other languages and figured that the British pronunciation would do. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and so I am changing it to /no/, which is how it is really pronounced.