No

It just depends on what terminology you want to use. "adjective" is more traditional; "determiner" is preferred by some people nowadays.

GPYIt just depends on what terminology you want to use. "adjective" is more traditional; "determiner" is preferred by some people nowadays.

Thanks. I see.

It’s not just a matter of terminology or personal preference; it’s largely a matter of grammatical analysis. If you think about it, the only things that no has in common with adjectives are that it functions as a dependent to a noun and can be modified by (a limited range of) adverbs.* Even leaving aside determiners, these properties are not unique

Aspara GusIt’s not just a matter of terminology or personal preference; it’s largely a matter of grammatical analysis.

Yes, but the method of grammatical analysis and terminology selected is still a matter of personal preference, and will remain so until some grammarian comes up with a system that is universally accepted.

fivejedjonYes, but the method of grammatical analysis and terminology selected is still a matter of personal preference

All I meant by that was that the choice between these terms is much more complex than that between, for example, ‘second conditional’ and ‘remote conditional’ or ‘base form’ and ‘plain form’, where it doesn’t make any significant difference w

Aspara GusIn other respects words like no differ radically from central members of the adjective category, both syntactically and semantically. The most prominent syntactic differences are that they’re non-gradable (*noer / *more no / *noest / *most no), they can’t be used predicatively (*The money is no), and they normally can’t be dropped in count singular noun phrases

Anonymousmarks a noun the way the articles "a" and "that" do.

Right (except that is not an article), but words in this function are not considered modifiers. The head money is said to be determined by no.
However, determiners/determinatives (whichever category term you use) occasionally occur in modifier function: her many