no useful

USAGE SUMMARY

"no useful" is not correct or usable in written English.
You can use the phrase "not useful" instead. For example: "This tool was not useful for the task at hand."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

So do we have to conclude that historical analysis teaches us no useful lessons?

The Guardian - Business

For co-substrates, waste streams should be used which have no useful application so far.

Energy, Sustainability and Society

If email served no useful purpose, we wouldn't use it.

TechCrunch

There's no useful stone here so wood is used for building and for fuel.

The Guardian

It contains no useful information.

The Guardian - Books

There was no useful literature".

The Guardian

"No useful information so far..

The Guardian

To which there was no useful reply.

The New Yorker

"These equations provide no useful value.

Independent

And if recessions served no useful purpose, it might be.

The New York Times

But many leave college with no useful skills at all.

The Guardian

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Opt for grammatically correct alternatives such as "not useful" or "useless" in formal writing. While "no useful" is commonly used, it's structurally incorrect.

Common error

Avoid using "no" directly before adjectives like "useful". Instead, use "not" or replace it with a single-word adjective like "useless" to maintain grammatical accuracy.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "no useful" functions as an adjective phrase intended to modify a noun, indicating a lack of utility or benefit. However, according to Ludwig AI, it is not grammatically correct. The examples provided by Ludwig show its frequent use despite its incorrectness.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

55%

Science

35%

Formal & Business

5%

Less common in

Wiki

3%

Encyclopedias

1%

Reference

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, while the phrase "no useful" is frequently used, especially in News & Media and Science, Ludwig AI identifies it as grammatically incorrect. It's intended to express a lack of benefit or utility. For formal contexts, it is recommended to use grammatically correct alternatives such as "not useful", "useless", or "of no use". Although the phrase is common, opting for correct alternatives enhances clarity and professionalism in writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

not useful

Direct replacement with a grammatically correct phrase.

unhelpful

Replaces "useful" with its direct antonym in a single word.

of no use

Expresses the lack of utility using a prepositional phrase.

useless

A single-word adjective indicating a lack of usefulness.

ineffective

Suggests a failure to produce a desired effect or result.

fruitless

Implies that efforts or actions yield no positive results.

pointless

Highlights the lack of purpose or meaning.

unavailing

Describes something that is without success or effect.

futile

Emphasizes the ineffectiveness of an action or effort.

in vain

Indicates that something is done without success.

FAQs

What is the correct way to say "no useful"?

The grammatically correct alternatives include "not useful", "useless", or "of no use".

Can I use "no useful" in formal writing?

It's best to avoid "no useful" in formal writing. Opt for grammatically correct phrases like "not useful" or single-word adjectives like "unhelpful".

What does it mean when something is described as "no useful"?

It means that something does not provide any benefit or assistance. However, using "not useful" or similar alternatives is grammatically better.

Are there situations where "no useful" is acceptable?

While commonly used, especially in informal contexts, "no useful" is grammatically incorrect. Always prefer "not useful" or "useless" to maintain accuracy.