[link to original on tumblr]
---&---
Baby, don't you cry no moreThere are two interesting ambiguities in this (which typing the lyrics out kind of ruins).
No more
My baby, don't you cry no more
I've been a lot of trouble, but I won't be any more
Baby, don't you cry, no
Baby, don't you cry no more
First there's the line "I've been a lot of trouble, but I won't be any more." That's the way it's printed in the liner notes, but audibly, it's no different from "I've been a lot of trouble, but I won't be anymore." They negate slightly different things: "I won't be any more" is quantitative ("I won't be any more [trouble]"), and "I won't be anymore" is more temporal ("I won't be trouble any longer"). However, just by hearing it, it could be taken either way.
Second, there's the "no" in "Baby, don't you cry, no" - the penultimate line. That part isn't printed in the liner notes at all (apparently because it's just a repetition, so they assume the reader can figure it out), but like any more/anymore, it can be rendered in two different ways. There's either "Baby, don't you cry no" or "Baby, don't you cry, no." The comma makes a big difference. Without the comma, it seems like the line is interrupted and that it was supposed to be the same as the following line "Baby, don't you cry no more" but the "more" was left out for any number of reasons. With the comma, the "no" becomes an interjection instead of an adverb. Those two options also vary the function of "cry" - whether it's transitive (taking "no more" as an object) or intransitive (taking no object at all). The difference in semantics isn't as different here as it is with any more/anymore, but it's still an ambiguity that's present only in an audible form.
Referencing Rod Argent's version from Red House (titled just "Baby Don't You Cry"), I've discovered that the ambiguous "any more"/"anymore" and "no" are present there too.