"being not sth./so." vs. "being no sth./so."

[bossel]

This came up in a seminar today:

"He is not a teacher."
vs.
"He is no teacher."

I would like to have some opinions from native speakers whether you see a difference in meaning here & if so, whether you see this as a general difference between "being not..." & "being no...".

[BrennaCeDria]

Well, technically I guess that they can be the same thing, but to me it sounds more dramatic to say "he is no teacher" than "he is not a teacher." You could be implying that he is a very bad teacher, by the "no teacher" thing also. I really think it's just a thing of style, like in LOTR, it wouldn't be the same if Eowyn said, "I am not a man" as it is when she says, "I am no man" (or, even more dramatic, "No (living) man am I!" like in the book).

[Glenn]

I have the same feeling as Brenna. "He is not a teacher" is an objective statement of fact, but "he is no teacher" is a subjective statement offering opinion on the quality of teacher he is, not necessarily denying that he is a teacher.

[Uncle Frank]

Originally Posted by Glenn

I have the same feeling as Brenna. "He is not a teacher" is an objective statement of fact, but "he is no teacher" is a subjective statement offering opinion on the quality of teacher he is, not necessarily denying that he is a teacher.

That's the way a New Englander would say it.

Frank

[bossel]

Originally Posted by Glenn

I have the same feeling as Brenna. "He is not a teacher" is an objective statement of fact, but "he is no teacher" is a subjective statement offering opinion on the quality of teacher he is, not necessarily denying that he is a teacher.

This goes in the direction the lecturer suggested, although he was quite sure that "he is no teacher" only means "not a good teacher." But it's obviously a bit more ambiguous than that.

Thanks, guys!

[cacawate]

Yup, if I'm not correct I believe that was what Glenn meant also. And as Frank suggested (not knowingly?) it feels dialectal. "He ain't no teacha!" <--how was that Frank?

[lexico]

Originally Posted by cacawate

Yup, if I'm not correct I believe that was what Glenn meant also. And as Frank suggested (not knowingly?) it feels dialectal. "He ain't no teacha!" <--how was that Frank?

Hi, Cacawate! What's with the neck ? Whiplash from the rear ?
You're saying that if you are wrong, that Glenn and Frank can be two ?

Anyway, I agree with everybody including you, Cacawate.
So that would mean, in other words; *clears throat* for instance let me draw an example...

1-1. He is not a good person.=> SVNegCn, Cn: noun complement
2-1. He is not good.========> SVNegCadj, Cadj: adjectival complement

Different syntax, but same sense. The following are emphatic.

1-2. *there's no way to emphsize 1-1 in formal English*
2-2. He is not any good.=====> SVNegAdvCadj

But the emphatic negation "not any" can contract to become "no." So we have

1-3. *there's no way to contract a negative emphsis*
2-3. He is no good..=====> SVNegcontCadj

Let's turn 2-2. into slang.

1-4. *there's no way to slangify a negative emphsis*
2-4. He ain't any good.].=====> SVNegAdvCadj

Let's doubly emphasize the slang.

1-5. *there's no way to emphasize the slangified negative emphsis*
2-5. He ain't no good..].=====> SVNegNegcontCadj

The double negation is not allowed in school grammar, but is used in casual speech.

Because normally "teacher" is not an adjective, it shouldn't be possible to use patterns 2-3. or 2-5. in school grammar; however casual speech allows it. You could say that this is a case of a noun being used as an adjective, borrowing the syntax of 2-3. SVNegcontCadj, where Cadj is filled by an noun-adjective "teacher" meaning "having the qualities of a teacher" instead of an adjective.

Therefore "He is no teacher" should mean "He is a very bad teacher" or "He emphatically does not qualify for a teacher." This should not exclude that he might be holding a teaching job at the moment, but only that he sucks greatly-greatly at it.

[Index]

I agree with Glenn.