"no one" should be written as "noone".

Well, we write "someone", "anyone" and "everyone", so logically it should be "noone".

Also we have "somebody", "anybody", "everybody" and "nobody", so why are we so messy with the ones that end in "-one"?

No-one is the old spelling, still used by some Englishmen.

Separation trend to be observed: forever ---> for ever


(Exceptions: to-day ---> today; good-by ---> goodby(e) )

''UK writers most often use the two-word phrase “for ever,” whereas Americans strongly prefer the one-word form “forever.” Each nationality is liable to think the other is making a mistake.''

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forever.html

In the days of instant messaging and Myspace, it doesn't even seem to matter anymore where the spaces go, as long as most of the words are in the right order.

The problem is that "noone" has no orthographical syllable break between the two o's. It would therefore suggest the pronunciation "noon".

"The problem is that "noone" has no orthographical syllable break between the two o's. It would therefore suggest the pronunciation "noon"."

That is a good argument that I would be inclined to make. However, there are words that break the so-called rule such as cooperation or coopt. There is also preemption, which would have been "predemption" if it had been formed according to the rules of the Latin from which it was borrowed (such as English having "redemption" rather than "reemption").

"No one" could be written "noöne", as "to cooperate" may be written "to coöperate", and "zoology" may be written as "zoölogy".

My position on the matter is simply why should orthography reflect pronunciation in the first place? What is meant should be understood perfectly well from "noone", and there is no reason why individuals cannot figure out themselves how that is to be pronounced in their native varieties, whatever they might happen to be.

Have you gone bonkers Travis?

I have not gone bonkers, Guest; I just have given up completely on orthographic reform, and by extension, the very idea that orthography is really supposed to represent speech in any kind of direct fashion. Rather, I have come to recognize that orthography really just needs to represent abstract units of language, whose actual pronunciation if read aloud is largely irrelevant. The idea of what a word represents is what matters, rather than what the word may attempt to imply with respect to pronunciation. Hence in the case of, say, "noone", the issue of whether such may be misread as historical /ˈnuːn/ rather than historical /ˈnoʊ̯wʌn/ does not matter in Real Life.

No-one is old-fashioned British spelling.

Travis, your response would make sense if "noone" were the common spelling, and I were arguing against it. But the situation is reversed; "noone" is the nonstandard spelling, and this thread was started to argue in favor of it. Neither logic nor tradition offer an argument for it.

Suck my nads lads!!! It is NO-ONE. Now shut it!!!!! Happy NEW YEAR you lot!! Woooooo!!!!

>>Travis, your response would make sense if "noone" were the common spelling, and I were arguing against it. But the situation is reversed; "noone" is the nonstandard spelling, and this thread was started to argue in favor of it. Neither logic nor tradition offer an argument for it.<<

The reason for "noone" is just consistency with other such "no"-forms; no other word in this set of words has a space or hyphen inserted in them.