0

I'm reading "Immortals of Meluha" and while reading I encounter a sentence that was delivered by Shiva, he said "I'm no Lord Ram". What I'm thinking is that he should have said "I'm not Lord Ram". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

They are both grammatically correct, but they can have subtly different meanings.

"I'm not Lord Ram" means that they are not the person named "Lord Ram".

"I'm no Lord Ram" can also literally mean they aren't Lord Ram, but more often is used to imply that they are very different from Lord Ram in some way.

  • I have some basic medical knowledge, but I'm no doctor. (I'm not as good as a real doctor)
  • You're smart, but you're no Einstein. (You aren't as smart as Albert Einstein.)
  • Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy
Improve this answer
0

Both sentences are grammatically correct. They mean different things.

The first sentence:

  1. I'm no Lord Ram.

means that "I" am different in an important way from "Lord Ram". Perhaps "Lord Ram" is much more powerful, or much wiser, or knows much more about the subject of the conversation. Or perhaps the difference is one of aptitudes or morals: "Lord Ram" might be much nicer, or much more courageous, or much nastier, or much more cowardly, et cetera. In effect, the sentence treats "Lord Ram" as epitomizing a category of individuals, and says that "I" am not a member of that category.

As the original poster suspects, the second sentence is simpler. Its meaning is obvious:

  1. I'm not Lord Ram.
Improve this answer
1
  • It would be helpful if you give some examples of the same kind, i didn't find any resource related to this.
    – TheSohan
    Commented Jun 1, 2019 at 4:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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