88

The confusing term seems to be "respecting". This is a somewhat different meaning of "respect", that is still in common use: respecting (prep): in view of : considering with respect to : concerning The first amendment states that Congress shall pass no law related to (or with regard to) the establishment of a (state) religion. This has ...


72

From here, they have no difference in meaning; but nope is more informal, only used in a sense of opposite to yes (or yup). Also, nope is not used often in writing. You wouldn't say "there were nope errors", for example.


68

He is saying that you don't owe him thanks, he owes you thanks. He clearly regards you as the sort of student who makes teaching rewarding. He may even imply that he has learned from you, from the sorts of questions you have asked which made him think about things which he took for granted.


53

You can say either one, but they have different effects. "She is not a student" is a simple statement of fact. "She is no student" is usually an emphatic statement, which only really makes sense when you're denying somebody else's implication that she's a student. For example, if one professor says, "A student asked me a question about [some crackpot theory]...


51

Most of the time, especially in "vernacular" speech, multiple negations are not intended to be interpreted sequentially, but rather as an intensified single negative. The phrase "This ain't no place for no hero", in normal speech, would be "this is no place for a hero." The additional negations intensify it, leading to a sense more like "This is absolutely ...


41

The latter is correct. If the meaning is essentially There should or must never be any additional uses of nuclear bombs on cities or against people, as occurred in Hiroshima (and in Nagasaki) in August, 1945, it must be No more Hiroshimas. People who use this expression are likely using Hiroshima to stand for the bombings of both cities. Hiroshima then, ...


34

In colloquial spoken language some people use me neither in place of neither do I. A- I don't like getting up in the morning. B- Neither do I. /Me neither. In the US some people will also use me either in that case: A- I don't like getting up in the morning. B- Me either. But this is very informal and not to be used in a learning environment ...


34

The first sentence actually means the opposite of what it says. You spilled your coffee again! Usually when it's used this way it's marked with a question mark: You haven't spilled your coffee again[, have you]? but the exclamation point does make sense. The proper punctuation in this sense would actually probably be the "interrobang" but it's not a ...


34

Articles belong to a group of words called "determiners". Besides articles, there are other determiners in the English language, and "no" is a determiner too. Let me quote from BBC: No is a determiner expressing quantity like 'all', 'every', 'many', 'some', 'any', 'each', 'either', 'one', 'another' and is used before singular and plural nouns. It is ...


32

As other answers have pointed out, this is not good grammar, and you are correct that it should be 'be afraid' rather than 'do afraid'. The reason you still hear it is likely due to a troll post on 4chan which became a meme and, as such, was perpetuated by native speakers, even though they knew it was wrong. The original post was in December 2007 and ...


32

We can say things like: Don't ever text while driving. Don't ever do such a foolish and dangerous thing! Never text while driving. Never do such a foolish and dangerous thing! But we don't say "Do never do such a thing".unidiomatic P.S. In contemporary English, the do never {verb} construction is either a formulaic literary holdover from the 17th ...


32

"A" is like saying "one": I have a car I have one car Logically then, saying "no" is like saying "zero": I have no car I have zero cars. Therefore, there is no need for an article. "Not" is neither a determiner nor an article, so saying "I haven't a car" is fine as it is (although one is more likely to say "I don't have a car" or, for Americans, "I ...


29

In formal use, negation is "mathematical": double negations cancel out, as in your second example. In colloquial use, however, double negation is usually "intensive": doubling a negation reinforces the negative sense. Attention to context and emphasis will usually make it pretty clear what is intended. The speaker, on being urged to buy something, shakes ...


29

There are too many antonyms to count! It depends on how you want to use the word: The cola is not flat, it's bubbly. The tire is not flat, it's full. Her lecture was not flat, it was exciting. His humor isn't flat, it's wry. The earth isn't flat, it's round. Business is not flat, it's booming. That roof is not flat, it's sloped. Our piano is not flat, ...


29

"Dogs, not cats" is not a sentence: it is a contraction of a sentence. A fuller sentence would be (for example): "I mean dogs, not cats." That, in turn is a contraction of: "I mean dogs; I do not mean cats." Hence the "not" comes from association with the omitted verb. The technical term for this is ellipsis; see NVZ's answer. P.S. In ...


28

The bolded phrase in your question is expressed in an archaic negative - it is saying that Congress is prohibited from making any laws that promote an Established Religion (which is a phrase commonly used to mean the same thing as “an official church”). If the Constitution were first being written today, it might have been written as “...


27

The first and most important point to note it that it's very informal (more so than using contractions such as my it's there, for example). The main reason for using it at all stems from that "extreme informality". It normally conveys a relaxed attitude on the part of the speaker. Depending on context, it can be more or less emphatic than "No". You only ...


25

Both will be correct, depending upon the context in which you want to use them. If you are referring to the CITY in particular, then it will be "No more Hiroshima". However, if you are referring the incident that occurred there, it will be "No more Hiroshimas".


25

"Fuckin'" here is an intensifier, and it modifies "far". The meaning is the same as "very", with the added connotation of expressing contempt for social propriety, since "fuckin'" is vulgar. Since "far" is an adjective, "fuckin'" is an adverb, if it matters. (That's not a "word class", though, that's a part of speech: the role played by the word in a ...


25

Is it possible to say 'I don't afraid', 'You don't afraid' etc.? No. It is not possible. See, the verb "be" (is, are, was..) is a copular verb. When the copular is or an auxiliary verb is present in a clause, we do not use the so-called do-support when forming a negative version of that clause. We add not instead. It is possible. ("is" is a copular ...


23

Won't is simply a contraction of the words will not. They have the exact same meaning. Won't is more informal; if you're writing an essay, in most cases you're advised not to use any contractions. Beyond that, there's no reason not to choose whichever you like. More often when speaking, you'll hear won't. So if you're writing dialogue, you might use the ...


22

No More Hiroshima is what almost happened in WW-2. No More Hiroshimas is what we say to indicate that we don't want that to happen again. At best, the former sounds like a clumsy attempt at the latter.


21

Grammatically speaking, in standard/formal English a negative negates something. Two negatives together form something called a double negative, where the second negative reverses the first one. This is not the case in all languages, but it is in formal/standard English. The sentence you propose means that you are [no longer] [not hungry], which means that ...


20

"Least of all" is an idiom used with a negative statement meaning, of all those that we have just mentioned, this one meets the condition less than any of the others. i.e. the condition is negative, so this one is the most important or significant. "We can't afford to lose any member of this team, least of all Smith." We can't afford to lose any member of ...


20

Strictly mathematically, if you only had "not one", it could mean zero, or could mean a hundred, or any other number besides 1. However, this idiom ("not one of them") is a stronger version of "none of them". It means "none of them", but with more emotion. Like in an exasperation, a hope that at least one of them would do something, but then realizing that ...


19

Ellipsis (linguistics) — Wikipedia It refers to the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. There are numerous distinct types of ellipsis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. Common examples from Wikipedia: Gapping: John can play the guitar, and Mary (can play) the ...


19

In this case, "respecting" is equivalent to "with respect to" or "concerning": with/in respect to In reference or relation to; concerning: thefreedictionary.com So this phrase may be understood as Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion ... or, more simply, Congress shall make no law about an establishment of religion ...


18

You can say "She is no student." This "style" is usually used for emphasis. She is no student! She's an imposter, just a journalist trying to get her story!" You cannot say "She is not student". Here you need an article. Your edit makes your example correct. She is not a student.


17

Contractions such as ‘won’t’ are found principally in speech and in informal writing, although there seems to be a growing trend for them to occur in formal writing as well. Where the full form does occur in speech, it is often used for exaggerated emphasis. ‘I WILL NOT GO’ spoken slowly and deliberately shows greater determination than ‘I won’t go’ spoken ...


16

You can say "I don't fear <x>." "I don't have any fear." "I don't feel afraid." "I'm not afraid." Afraid is something you can be (adjective), not something you can do (verb). Unfortunately, "I don't afraid" sounds very wrong to native speakers. Unlike some subtle mistakes that we easily overlook, this one is quite distracting and obvious, at least ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible