# No one / None who has needed a hospital bed



## JungKim

This is what Trump said:

(1) No one who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed.

I think the antecedent of the underlined relative clause is 'one'.
Then, what's the antecedent of the same relative clause in (2)?

(2) None who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed.

If it's _none_, how come (2)'s antecedent has the negative meaning when (1)'s doesn't?


----------



## reno33

But (1)'s does have a negative meaning.....its antecedent is not "one" but "no one" (which is negative).


----------



## JungKim

But _The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_ on Pages 1060-61 says that the antecedent of (3) is not _no candidate_ but _candidate_.
(3) No candidate who scored 40% or more was ever failed.


----------



## Andygc

Have you actually found an example sentence like your sentence 2, or did you just assume that "none" can always replace "no one"?


----------



## Barque

JungKim said:


> None who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed.


This sentence could work if you replaced both _has_ses with _have_, and both instances of "a hospital bed" with "hospital beds", though it'd still sound a little odd.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> Have you actually found an example sentence like your sentence 2, or did you just assume that "none" can always replace "no one"?



I didn't look for an example like 2, nor did I assume that "none" can always replace "no one". Please note that I'm not saying that (1) and (2) mean exactly the same thing, or that "none" can always replace "no one". I'm just showing (2) as a possible counterpart of (1) in order to compare the relation between the antecedent and the relative clause in (1) and (2). 



Barque said:


> This sentence could work if you replaced both _has_ses with _have_, and both instances of "a hospital bed" with "hospital beds", though it'd still sound a little odd.


Thanks for your opinion. 
Here's what CGEL has to say about the treatment of _none_:





That said, I don't think the subject-verb agreement affects the validity of the question. I do understand that (2) might not be most natural, but I think it's natural enough to present the call of the question, unless you're objecting to the 'none who...' construction itself, which I don't think you are.


----------



## Barque

It says "none" takes the singular verb *when* they are construed as non-count singular. 

In my example, I don't think it's a 'non-count singular'. (I'm not very good with grammatical terms.)


----------



## JungKim

Barque said:


> It says "none" takes the singular verb *when* they are construed as non-count singular.
> 
> In my example, I don't think it's a 'non-count singular'. (I'm not very good with grammatical terms.)


You should be looking at the second sentence. CGEL's saying that _none_ in (2) takes either plural or singular verb.


----------



## Barque

JungKim said:


> You should be looking at the second sentence.


I thought you were pointing out the first to me. Ok, then the second seems to be the one that fits here.


----------



## Andygc

If you are going to explore sentences like your sentence 2 you should find real examples, not just something you made up. It's not a sentence any native English speaker would say, and it seems pointless discussing it. If you had said "nobody" as a replacement for "no one" there might have been some sense to it.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> If you are going to explore sentences like your sentence 2 you should find real examples, not just something you made up. It's not a sentence any native English speaker would say, and it seems pointless discussing it. If you had said "nobody" as a replacement for "no one" there might have been some sense to it.


Okay, then. Let me remove (2) and stick to (1).
In (1), what do you think is the antecedent of the relative clause?


----------



## Andygc

"one"


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> "one"


But 'no one' is a single unit both in traditional grammar and CGEL's grammar. In traditional grammar, it's a pronoun. In CGEL, it's a compound determinative. How could the antecedent be part of a single unit?

Moreover, if 'one' were the antecedent in (1), what would be the antecedent in (4)?
(4) Nobody who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed.


----------



## Andygc

"Nobody". I don't see your problem. The sentence "one who has needed a bed has been denied a bed" is a valid sentence. Put "no" in front of it and the sentence is negated, having the same meaning as "nobody who has needed a bed ...".

However, if you are happy to accept that "no one" is a single unit (which I will happily do, as the detailed analysis of grammar is not of great interest to me)), then the antecedent of "who" is "no one".


JungKim said:


> But _The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_ on Pages 1060-61 says that the antecedent of (3) is not _no candidate_ but _candidate_.


Which just goes to show how grammarians can tie themselves and their students in knots. Why should "no one" and "no candidate" be seen differently? That is a rhetorical question.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> "Nobody". I don't see your problem. The sentence "one who has needed a bed has been denied a bed" is a valid sentence. Put "no" in front of it and the sentence is negated, having the same meaning as "nobody who has needed a bed ...".


Let me tell you what my problem is.
If (1) and (4) are to mean the same thing, which I think they do, I think the antecedent of the same relative clause in (1) and (4) should have the same polarity. But "one" has positive polarity while "nobody" has negative polarity, which is counterintuitive.



Andygc said:


> However, if you are happy to accept that "no one" is a single unit (which I will happily do, as the detailed analysis of grammar is not of great interest to me)), then the antecedent of "who" is "no one".


This approach of treating "no one" as a single unit and thus as the antecedent is also problematic.
If "no one" could be the antecedent, I think the supplementary relative clause (non-restrictive relative clause) should also work, but (5) doesn't.
(5) No one, who has needed a hospital bed, has been denied a hospital bed. 
This doesn't work, because 'who' cannot refer to 'no one'.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

It can in a restrictive/defining clause without commas, since it is essental information, part of the subject of the sentence.


----------



## JungKim

Hermione Golightly said:


> It can in a restrictive/defining clause without commas, since it is essental information, part of the subject of the sentence.


If you mean "no one" can be the antecedent in (1), I'd like to ask you how you could possibly *restrict* the meaning of "no one"?


----------



## Andygc

JungKim said:


> This approach of treating "no one" as a single unit and thus as the antecedent is also problematic.


No, it's not problematic, because it is being used with a restrictive clause. You can't use it with a non-restrictive clause, as you have already noted.
No one, who has needed a hospital bed, has been denied a hospital bed. 
No one who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed. 
Nobody who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed. 
You can't use "nobody" with a non-restrictive clause either.
Nobody, who has needed a hospital bed, has been denied a hospital bed.  Unless, of course "Nobody" is somebody's rather unusual name.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> No, it's not problematic, because it is being used with a restrictive clause.


Then, maybe you could try answering the question in post #17.


----------



## Loob

I don't understand the question in post 17. Of course you can restrict the meaning of _no-one_.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> I don't understand the question in post 17. Of course you can restrict the meaning of _no-one_.


Then, what do you think is the reason for not allowing (5) while allowing (1)?


----------



## Loob

I don't understand that question either, I'm afraid.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> I don't understand that question either, I'm afraid.


Let me give it a try. 
Since 'no one' is equivalent in meaning to 'not anyone' we can have (6):
(6) Not anyone who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed.

Do you think the antecedent is "not anyone" in (6)?

If you still do, how about (7), which has the same meaning but with clausal negation?
(7) They have not denied anyone who has needed a hospital bed a hospital bed.

I think you'll note that the antecedent in (7) does not have a negative meaning to it. If so, why would you think that that in (6) or (1) does?

*EDIT: Please see post #26 instead (due to Barque's post below).*


----------



## Barque

JungKim said:


> Since 'no one' is equivalent in meaning to 'not anyone' we can have (6):
> (6) Not anyone who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed.


No, that sentence doesn't work for your intended meaning. It changes the meaning. It means everyone who needed a bed had been denied one, except some.
_A: Anyone who's needed a bed has been denied one.
B: No, not anyone. The influential ones got them._



JungKim said:


> (7) They have not denied anyone who has needed a hospital bed a hospital bed.


This works but it wouldn't normally be worded that way, with "a hospital bed" repeated.


----------



## JungKim

Barque said:


> No, that sentence doesn't work for your intended meaning. It changes the meaning. It means everyone who needed a bed had been denied one, except some.
> _A: Anyone who's needed a bed has been denied one.
> B: No, not anyone. The influential ones got them._


Thanks for pointing that out. 
Here's a rewrite of post #24 ('anyone' --> 'not a single person')
--------


Loob said:


> I don't understand that question either, I'm afraid.


Let me give it a try. 
Since 'no one' is equivalent in meaning to 'not a single person' we can have (6):
(6) Not a single person who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed.

Do you think the antecedent is "not a single person" in (6)?

If you still do, how about (7), which has the same meaning but with clausal negation?
(7) They have not denied a single person who has needed a hospital bed a hospital bed.

I think you'll note that the antecedent in (7) does not have a negative meaning to it. If so, why would you think that that in (6) or (1) does?
--------


----------



## Loob

I'm struggling to understand what your question is in this thread, JungKim.

Looking back at post 1, I think the problem may stem from the fact that you are treating *no one = nobody* as semantically separable into two words. It isn't, any more than _*nobody*_ is separable into _*no body*_  or _*everyone*_ is separable into _*every one - *_which is why I prefer the hyphenated form_* no-one. *_If, like me, you wrote "no-one", I suspect your question in post 1 would not have arisen.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> I'm struggling to understand what your question is in this thread, JungKim.
> 
> Looking back at post 1, I think the problem may stem from the fact that you are treating *no one = nobody* as semantically separable into two words. It isn't, any more than _*nobody*_ is separable into _*no body*_  or _*everyone*_ is separable into _*every one - *_which is why I prefer the hyphenated form_* no-one. *_If, like me, you wrote "no-one", I suspect your question in post 1 would not have arisen.


I suspect the key word here is "semantically".
Back to post #1, my question is about identifying the correct antecedent of the relative clause, which I believe is about semantics, not syntax, as shown in post #26.

Even if syntax determines identifying the antecedent, writing "no-one" instead of "no one" is neither here nor there because "no one" without the hyphen is already an inseparable syntactic unit in traditional grammar as well as in CGEL's grammar. It's not the hyphen that makes it inseparable. The hyphen is simply a way of expressing the inseparable syntactic nature that is already present in "no one".


----------



## Loob

It follows from what you say in post 30 27 that the antecedent of the relative clause in post 1's sentence (1) is *No(-)one.*

End of subject, no?


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> It follows from what you say in post 30 27 that the antecedent of the relative clause in post 1's sentence (1) is *No(-)one.*
> 
> End of subject, no?


Where in post 27 did I say that the antecedent is 'no one' with or without the hyphen?


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> "no one" without the hyphen is already an inseparable syntactic unit in traditional grammar as well as in CGEL's grammar. It's not the hyphen that makes it inseparable. The hyphen is simply a way of expressing the inseparable syntactic nature that is already present in "no one".


----------



## JungKim

JungKim said:


> "no one" without the hyphen is already an inseparable syntactic unit in traditional grammar as well as in CGEL's grammar. It's not the hyphen that makes it inseparable. The hyphen is simply a way of expressing the inseparable syntactic nature that is already present in "no one".


There, I was talking about syntax, not semantics. And I made it clear, as shown below, that identifying the correct antecedent involves semantics, not syntax:


JungKim said:


> I suspect the key word here is "semantically".
> Back to post #1, my question is about identifying the correct antecedent of the relative clause, which I believe is about semantics, not syntax, as shown in post #26.


So, no, I did not say that "no(-)one" is the antecedent.


----------



## Barque

I only have a hazy idea of what _syntax_, _semantics _and _antecedent _mean. 

I suggest you try and look at what the words you use mean instead of thinking about syntax and semantics.

Sometimes the answer is just _That's how it is. _Logic doesn't always enter into it.


----------



## Loob

You're suggesting in post 31, JungKim, that the syntactically-inseparable _*no(-)one*_ is semantically separable? If so, then I'll leave you to it....

_(Slowly cross-posted)_


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> You're suggesting in post 31, JungKim, that the syntactically-inseparable _*no(-)one*_ is semantically separable? If so, then I'll leave you to it....


I'm not here to suggest anything. I'm here to ask.
I'm *asking *in post 31 and throughout the thread *if and how* "the syntactically-inseparable _no(-)one_ is semantically separable", because if it's not, I don't know how to identify the correct antecedent.


----------



## Loob

Would you find yourself in the same quandary if the original sentence bad been
_(1a) Nobody who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed._
?


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> Would you find yourself in the same quandary if the original sentence bad been
> _(1a) Nobody who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed._
> ?


Yes!


----------



## Loob

What would your candidates for the antecedent of the relative clause in (1a) have been?


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> What would your candidates for the antecedent of the relative clause in (1a) have been?


I know virtually everybody would say it's _nobody_.
I used to be one of them. But the more I think about it, the more it doesn't seem like _nobody_ for reasons discussed so far.
So frankly I have no clue what my candidates would be.


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> But the more I think about it, the more it doesn't seem like _nobody_ for reasons discussed so far.


Can you repeat those reasons, please, JungKim?  I want to be sure I understand what's stopping you seeing _*Nobody*_ as the antecedent of the relative clause in _(1a) Nobody who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed._


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> Can you repeat those reasons, please, JungKim?  I want to be sure I understand what's stopping you seeing _*Nobody*_ as the antecedent of the relative clause in _(1a) Nobody who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed._


Please see (6) and (7) in post #25. Only now, _nobody_ instead of _no one_ is replaced with _not a single person_.
Let me show it again:
-----
Since 'nobody' is equivalent in meaning to 'not a single person' we can have (6):
(6) Not a single person who has needed a hospital bed has been denied a hospital bed.

Do you think the antecedent is "not a single person" in (6)?

If you still do, how about (7), which has the same meaning but with clausal negation?
(7) They have not denied a single person who has needed a hospital bed a hospital bed.

I think you'll note that the antecedent in (7) does not have a negative meaning to it. If so, why would you think that the antecedent in (6) or (1a) does?
----


----------



## Loob

I'm sorry, JungKim, I'm still having difficulty understanding what your issue is. Looking at your post 3 in particular, I'm beginning to wonder if you have, perhaps, misread pp 1060-1061 of the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language._

Those pages deal with some of the major syntactic differences between integrated and supplementary relative clauses (CGEL's terms for what other grammars call defining & non-defining or restrictive & non-restrictive relative clauses); page 1060 deals in particular with differences in the sort of antecedents the two types of relative clauses can have.

The paragraph including the sentence you quoted in post 3 is as follows:

*Quantification with no, any, every*​Expressions consisting of _no, any, _or _every _morphologically compounded with _-one, -body, _or _-thing, _or syntactically combined with a head noun, have non-referential interpretations and cannot serve as antecedent of a supplementary relative, but they can be followed by integrated relatives:​_[7]   *No candidate, who scored 40_% or _more, was ever failed_. [supplementary]​_No candidate who scored 40_% or _more was ever failed_.  [integrated]​
So the point being made about *no-one *is that it can't be the antecedent of a non-restrictive relative clause, but it can be the antecedent of a restrictive relative clause.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> *Quantification with no, any, every*
> Expressions consisting of _no, any, _or _every _morphologically compounded with _-one, -body, _or _-thing, _or syntactically combined with a head noun, have non-referential interpretations and cannot serve as antecedent of a supplementary relative, but they can be followed by integrated relatives:​_[7]   *No candidate, who scored 40_% or _more, was ever failed_. [supplementary]​_No candidate who scored 40_% or _more was ever failed_.  [integrated]​


In that paragraph, the underlined "expressions" include not only _no-one_ but also _no candidate_. So by the last clause "they can be followed by integrated relatives" CGEL cannot have meant "they can serve as antecedent of integrated relatives", because on the next page CGEL says the antecedent is "candidate", not "no candidate", in [7ii].


----------



## Loob

Light dawns - I wish you had explained the background to your question in post 1.
All I can say is that "No candidate" is different structurally from "no-one", as you can see most clearly by adding an adjective instead of a relative clause:
_No intelligent candidate was ever failed.
No-one intelligent was ever failed._
If you are wondering how the CGEL would diagram the "no-one" sentence, perhaps you could write to the authors?


----------



## bennymix

I'm glad the issue is settled after 43 posts.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> Light dawns - I wish you had explained the background to your question in post 1.
> All I can say is that "No candidate" is different structurally from "no-one", as you can see most clearly by adding an adjective instead of a relative clause:
> _No intelligent candidate was ever failed.
> No-one intelligent was ever failed._
> If you are wondering how the CGEL would diagram the "no-one" sentence, perhaps you could write to the authors?



CGEL (Page 1034) explains 'antecedent' as follows:


> Relative clauses are so called because they are related by their form to an antecedent. They contain within their structure an anaphoric element whose interpretation is determined by the antecedent.


In (1)/(1a), "the anaphoric element" is _who_. Now, do you really think that the interpretation of _who_ in (1)/(1a) is determined by _no-one_/_nobody_, which has a negative meaning?

The tree diagram of this type of structure is already shown on page 412 ([7b]). But such diagrams are not very telling in identifying the antecedent of a relative clause.


----------



## Loob

I'm sorry, JungKim, I have nothing more to say.


----------

