[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 134 KB, 500x667, 5gegfwbrd0r8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2800545 No.2800545[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

/Lit/

Does it really matter whether I use "no one" or "no-one"? Isn't the distinction just a little too pedantic to matter?

>> No.2800556

Use "no one" like a normal human being.

>> No.2800557

Do what you will brother. Some circles be rolling with 'noone' I've been hearing.

>> No.2800555

noone

>> No.2800570

>>2800555
>>2800557
>>2800556

Is "noone" really a thing now? Like, in actual books?

So if I sent in a manuscript with just no ones and no no-ones, noone would have an issue with it?

>> No.2800578

>>2800570
You should be able to get away with any of them in your manuscript as long as you have consistency.

>> No.2800591

no one is best

>> No.2800595

i just say no1, m8

>> No.2800663

>>2800578
>>2800591

Hm, I wonder whether people didn't perhaps misinterpret my question. No one and no-one have distinct meanings. Is it okay to use these interchangeably? Ie does the agent/publisher not care or will it make a bad impression on the agent/publisher?

>> No.2800679

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

tl;dw: Whatever.

>> No.2800688

I USE "NOONE".

"NOONE" IS THE "FINAL SYNTHESIS" OF THE "TERM".

>> No.2800701

>>2800570

"noone" is an eyesore and I strongly recommend never using it in any context.

>> No.2800703

>>2800545
I didn't know there was a distinction. I also thought both were acceptable. Is there a distinction?

>> No.2800714

>>2800703
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/no-one_no_one.htm

I was under the impression that "no-one" was the more acceptable form, however, because all my fucking English teachers always penalised me for writing it as "no one".

>> No.2800728

>>2800701
I think so, too. Must be an Americanism, too, because I can't imagine an Englishman reading that and going, "Oh, yeah, that's all right, then."

>> No.2800827

>>2800728
>>2800701

Okay, thanks guys. I guess I'll stick to no one and no-one both. Unless anyone has anything else to contribute here?

>> No.2800895

I remember reading "noone" in a book at like 8 years old and I thought it was a typo of noon. Extremely confusing, just use "nobody" like a normal human being.

>> No.2800898

>tfw you used to write noone for absolutely no reason

the fuck was I thinking?

>> No.2800904
File: 21 KB, 400x405, lion-pidgeon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2800904

When I first looked at that image, I thought his arm was a giant cock.

>> No.2800920
File: 13 KB, 314x211, Fig 1.1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2800920

>>2800714
So there's not really a distinction, because "no one" is always right (assuming a distinction requires that for each form there is a case where it would be incorrect). "No one" is always right because the syntax of English doesn't allow the situation to arise that there is ambiguity between the use of the words intended in the cases /A ∩ B/, where "no-one" is right, and /B − A/, where "no-one" is not right (Fig 1.1). So your English teachers were wrong, if only because "no one" is well established and there's no grammatical necessity to use "no-one".

I personally like "noӧne" the best, but I'm a homeless man who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations.

>> No.2801595

>>2800920
>I personally like "noӧne" the best, but I'm a homeless man who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations.

I see. I'll take all of that into consideration. Just a note: there is actually a distinction between "no-one" (nobody) and "no one" (no individual).

>> No.2801600

>>2801595
But yes, it seems my teachers were strange. Or maybe that site I linked is American, and it doesn't apply to English practice. I don't know.