- noone (plural noones)
Noones? How can there be a plural of noone? You could have a possessive, but that would need an apostrophe. BenAveling
- It's an ordinary noun (meaning midday) - why would you not have a plural? SemperBlotto 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1857 Henry Best, Charles Best Norcliffe, "Rural economy in Yorkshire in 1641"
- Mowers will usually come afore five in the morninge and they then will sleepe an houre att noone ; yow are to minde what time they arise and fall to worke att noones...
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
- That entry is a mess. Sense 3 ("Common misspelling of noöne") seems almost to be a joke, since noöne is so vanishingly rare that no misspelling of it would be common. Equinox ◑ 22:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- What he said. I think I'd have removed them both and left a note in the edit summary to revert if necessary Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC) .
Sorry, I'm not sure how to add to the debate, I apologize if this is totally out of place, but since when is American English the standard for all English? Noone is an alternate spelling of no-one, the justification for "no one" is that everyone uses it, but it doesn't mean noone and no-one are misspellings.
- I have to agree with 188.8.131.52 above: I could be in the wrong, but all my experience (which is with New Zealand English) is that "noone" is a perfectly acceptable form. It's only recently on the internet that I've noticed people, mainly (but of course not exclusively) Americans, are uncomfortable with that form. I don't know how one would verify it, though. --184.108.40.206 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seconded. Additionally in Sweden it seems that ‘noone’ is perferred and ‘no one’ is considered borderline incorrect. Of cource, there is no standard Swedish variant of English. 220.127.116.11 01:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Random House 11th ed. has a "noone" (one word) meaning "nobody" etc, as a noun (!). Editors may also wish to check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noone which has essentially the same text (and credits it to the RHED). That web page also has a quotation from E.E. Cummings that uses "noone".
- I'm not familiar with wiktionary formatting, so I'm not sure how the two non-homophonic homographs ought to be distinguished here. Would somebody please fix the entry such that the two meanings didn't appear together? Thanks. -- 18.104.22.168 23:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a word!
Since 'noone' is NOT a word, this page should be redirected to "no one," or the equivalent thereof.
Anyone who knows their grammar should second this.
- I agree. "Noone" is very, very rarely used, and, when it is, seems usually to be through ignorance. A Google search will show quite a lot of hits for "noone", but the vast majority are a surname, company name, etc., with barely any being used to mean "no one". The reference.com result seems to be a combination of auto-correct (to "no one") for the definition, and automatic inclusion of search engine results for the examples. Its inclusion in one dictionary is a poor reference, compared to the evidence against, although it may be worth noting in the article. If there is no further debate on this, I will revert the article, citing http://grammarist.com/usage/no-one-noone/ . WOFall (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I really am amazed at the support for this. I can find literally nothing on the Internet to support "noone" being anything other than an error. I can't even find people arguing it should be a word. I wonder if Wiktionary has a high number of non-native speakers, who are following the logic stated in the usage note. If so, one should note that English is full of exceptions! As for redirects, try fullof, paravance, and so on. Regarding the previous discussion's pointer that dictionary.com "also has a quotation from E.E. Cummings", Cummings was noted for "intentional misspellings", as per his Wikipedia article. It's also the only quote in the database, as compared to the 200 (max shown) they have for "no one". WOFall (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming ‘noöne’ is an obsolete form — as per its Wiktionary entry — then should not ‘noone’ be a correct spelling since it seems that diaeresis has become obsolete for the purpose of saying that the two vowels are separate (except when a triphthong (or diphthong?) would be created otherwise (except in standard American usage?)) 22.214.171.124 01:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- If ‘no-one’ is an accepted spelling and ‘noone’ should be too because hyphens (not to be confused with endashes) are not necessary and can be removed (but not exchanged for a space). Additionally the statistics of the preferences suggests that ‘no one’ is an American “simplification”. 126.96.36.199 12:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
[...] temptation to read and pronounce it as "noon"
Why would ‘noone’ create a tempation to read or pronounce it as "noon"? This tempation does not exist for any other word spelled with two ‘o’:s that is a double vowel. Consider: coordinate, cooperative, etc.
188.8.131.52 01:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not true that no other word has this problem. coop is ambiguous (could be a chicken coop or a co-operative), which is why the later is usually written co-op. Other short or rare co- words are written the same way - co-opt (ngram), co-occur (ngram). It's only when you get to long common words like "coordinate" and "cooperate" which are not ambiguous - they don't resemble any other word, and they're long enough that their Latinate nature is obvious - that writers can get lazy and omit the hyphens. "noone" is certainly not long enough to be unambiguous. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I sometimes wonder how to "ork" a "cow" when I see co-worker spelt without a hyphen. Dbfirs 19:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)