Talk:no more

worth no more than (noun?)
What about the following sentence? The pope's opinion on astronomy is worth no more than mine --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I had no complaints and no more did Tom.
I had no complaints and no more (= neither) did Tom. (Formal) I will torment you no more (= no longer) What meaning is used here? --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

informal
We do not use no more in standard modern English as an adverb to express the idea of actions and situations stopping. Instead, we use no longer (usually before the verb), [https://thetrcompany.com/en/no-not-no-longer-not-longer/ '''not... any longer/more'''] --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April 2021–January 2022
Rfd-sense "dead". "This parrot is no more!": see, sense 1: "To exist; to have real existence; to be alive". 212.224.230.84 11:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily a living thing that has died, it could be anything that no longer exists: see Lexico. DonnanZ (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The verb form is in the dead-parrot usex is not a copula; this is simply the adverbial sense of no more; see the quote that is the last usex there. --Lambiam 13:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it is neither adjective nor adverb, but a phrase. So that argument may be flawed. DonnanZ (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your argument. In the saying, “when in doubt, abstain”, the words form a phrase, more specifically an adverbial phrase. We list adverbial phrases under the PoS heading Adverb. Likewise, when someone proclaims, “slavery exists no more”, the boldened part is indeed a phrase, an adverbial phrase, and it should be classified accordingly.  --Lambiam 11:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would rather call it a phrase than a bare adverb, which doesn't make much sense. In any case, the current PoS (adjective) is inaccurate. Keep and revise. DonnanZ (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical of this explanation. I can't think of any other cases where an adverb modifies "to be". You can say "Yet the problem stubbornly exists." but not "Yet the problem stubbornly is" and definitely not "Yet the problem is stubbornly." Colin M (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that in the phrase “the Lord is with us in this place”, the adverbial clause “with us” modifies “to be”. --Lambiam 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking about adverbs of manner (-ly adverbs), not adverbs of place ("They're here!", "I'll be back") or time ("My concert is tomorrow") or adverbial prepositional phrases like "with us" and "in this place". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "with us" is a prepositional phrase headed by "with". It is functioning as a predicative complement, not an adjunct. Colin M (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Lambiam said. Fay Freak (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the lemming. Also, the fact that the term acts somewhat as an adjective, can instead be interpreted as an adverb (as the above demonstrates), and is made up of two determiners (or maybe adverbs?) has to count for something. All the layers of confusion means is not clearly understood from the sum of its parts. Imetsia (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because the parrot still exists. I didn't see another dictionary that defined be as live, and I'm having a hard time imagining it used that way. "What did the doctor say?" / "Grandpa is." / "Oh, that's wonderful news!" DAVilla 09:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And did you see another dictionary that defined as "dead"? 212.224.230.114 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . 212.224.230.114 11:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be moved to - an unnecessary entry, but it will at least have the merit of not being ridiculous and nonsensical. 212.224.230.114 11:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * MWOnline has no more defined as an adverb meaning "dead, departed", but its only usage examples are with forms of be. This lemming would not be a great one to follow.
 * I think I agree with Lambiam that be ("exists") is not the copula and that the adverbial definition "no longer" accurately characterizes usage such as the "dead parrot" example. Thus we should not have the definition under challenge unless someone can show other usage showing true adjective usage, which seems to me unlikely. DCDuring (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per lemming, because not existing and not being alive are obviously different, and because sense 1 of is labelled "now usually literary" which does not apply to no more as far as I can tell. Fytcha (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

RFD-no consensus. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)