no comprehensive

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "no comprehensive" is not correct in English as it is incomplete and lacks context.
It can be used in contexts where you want to indicate the absence of something comprehensive, but it needs to be part of a complete thought or sentence. Example: "The report provided no comprehensive analysis of the data."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

58 human-written examples

No comprehensive study has yet measured the full damage wrought by the schools.

The New York Times

But no comprehensive theory emerged.

The New York Times

But there are no comprehensive figures.

The Guardian - Opinion

And for that, we have no comprehensive report.

The Guardian - Opinion

No comprehensive worldwide censuses exist to provide hard numbers.

The New York Times - Science

No comprehensive measure of poverty, for example, exists.

The New Yorker

There is no comprehensive listing service for Brooklyn brownstones.

The New York Times

There was no comprehensive training in how to practice it.

The New York Times

"There's no comprehensive plan for how these areas are supposed to work together".

The New York Times

So far, he added, the program has done no comprehensive ground tests against nuclear assaults.

The New York Times - Science

But there is no comprehensive, national source of data for new condominiums sales.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using the phrase, ensure it's part of a complete sentence to clearly convey the intended meaning. For example, "There is "no comprehensive" data available, hindering our analysis."

Common error

Avoid using "no comprehensive" as a standalone fragment. Always integrate it into a complete sentence with a subject and verb to avoid ambiguity and ensure grammatical correctness.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "no comprehensive" functions as a negating descriptor, indicating the absence of a thorough or complete quality in something. As seen in Ludwig AI, it typically modifies a noun, suggesting that something lacks the characteristic of being comprehensive.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

34%

Science

66%

Formal & Business

0%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "no comprehensive" is used to indicate the absence of a thorough or complete aspect. Although Ludwig AI marks it as grammatically "incorrect", it appears "very common" across various contexts, including "News & Media" and "Science". While grammatically questionable, its frequent use in authoritative sources suggests an acceptable status. To avoid potential errors, ensure the phrase is part of a complete sentence. Alternatives include "not comprehensive" or "lacking comprehensiveness".

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

not comprehensive

Simple negation of "comprehensive", maintaining the core meaning but with a slightly weaker emphasis.

lacking comprehensiveness

Focuses on the absence of comprehensiveness as a quality or attribute.

not all-inclusive

Highlights the absence of complete inclusion of all relevant elements.

not exhaustive

Emphasizes that something is incomplete in its coverage of all possible items.

incomplete

A broader term indicating something is not finished or whole, applicable when comprehensiveness is implied.

partial

Indicates that only a part or aspect is covered, implying a lack of full comprehensiveness.

limited in scope

Specifically points out restrictions in the breadth or extent of something.

narrow in focus

Highlights a concentrated or restricted area of attention, lacking a broader perspective.

fragmentary

Suggests that information or coverage is broken into pieces and lacks coherence as a whole.

superficial

Indicates a lack of depth or thoroughness in examination or coverage.

FAQs

How can I use "no comprehensive" in a sentence?

Ensure the phrase is part of a complete sentence. For instance, "There is "no comprehensive" study on this topic" or "We found "no comprehensive" solution to the problem".

What are some alternatives to using "no comprehensive"?

You can use alternatives such as "not comprehensive", "lacking comprehensiveness", or "not exhaustive" to convey a similar meaning.

Is it grammatically correct to start a sentence with "no comprehensive"?

Starting a sentence directly with "no comprehensive" is generally incorrect. It's better to structure the sentence to include a subject and verb, such as "There is "no comprehensive" analysis available".

What's the difference between "no comprehensive" and "not comprehensive"?

While both phrases convey a similar meaning, "not comprehensive" is often considered more grammatically sound. "No comprehensive" typically requires a noun following it, as in "no comprehensive study", while "not comprehensive" can modify a statement more broadly.