Sentences express a complete idea. They need not have subjects and objects. (Where did you get the idea all sentences have objects?) The classic grammar-school rule was that sentences must have a subject and a verb. When it was pointed out to grammarians that one-word imperitives did, in fact, create a sentence, they bent the rule by creating imaginary subjects. Even though you may yell out “HELP!”, they say, you’re really saying “[YOU] HELP[ME]” or possibly “[ANYONE]HELP[SOMEBODY ELSE]”
Why go throught the BS of making up words and subjects? Accept the fact that a one-word sentence can exist and you don’t have to bend your rules. A sentence is any collection of words that expresses a complete thought. Can you do it without a subject or without a verb? Absolutely.
Bravo! An intelligent utterance clearly explaining the descriptive grammar in question. Listen to Pulykamell, everyone, for he speaks wisdom.
(Please note the failure of the above clear statements to conform to Hyperelastic’s prescriptive definition.)
While we’re on the subject of your authoritarian attitudes, Hyper, may I point out that you pulled much the same stunt in GQ, of all places, by insisting that a person’s name was not his own, to define the proper spelling and pronunciation of. Do you have other gems of wisdom to share with us from your storehouse? Because, bluntly, it is getting very old very fast.
There are some times when subjects, verbs and/or objects are implied, e.g., in the popular chant:
“What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!”
There, the one word sentences are short for “We want peace!” and “We want it now!”
However, as others have said, an interjection can be a ciomplete sentence. Another kind of verbless sentence in English is a sentence of the foirm, “The sooner the better.” No, there’s no verb there; and I’m not even sure that “The sooner” is a subject.
Of course, if you want “no” to fit into the subject-verb sentence rules, the way around it is to say “no” really means “No [it does not]” or something similar.
I know I’ve been tempted sometimes to correct someone’s spelling of their pets’ names (“I’m pretty sure that El Gotto should be – oh, never mind”), but I’ve never had the immense gall to act on it.
And a person with basic literacy may not know how they want their cat’s name spelled, but they’ll certainly know how their own name is spelled.
When you have to turn it into a question of “attitude,” it’s pretty clear you’ve lost the argument. You seem to be objecting to linguistic standards on free speech grounds. You can say anything you want, but you cannot reasonably claim that therefore there is no such thing as standard English.
The cite from Cecil states that “No,” lacking a subject and a verb, is not a sentence, contrary to what Left Hand of Dorkness intended. (I mistakenly said a sentence had to have a subject and and object when I meant subject and verb.) “Go.” is a perfectly legitimate sentence. The subject is the understood “you”, and the verb is “go”. Others have tried to advance analogous arguments for “No,” but they are confusing context with the understood subject.
Of course, there is no law against writing “No.” or any other fragmentary construction, as many have delighted in doing in this thread. Hemingway is full of such tidbits and he got a Nobel Prize. All I have said is that it isn’t a sentence. Go ahead, say “nucular,” spell your name “Sean” and pronounce it “Seen.” In real life, it’s impolite to correct people, so we’ll never even raise an eyebrow.
