I Googled “everyone is not” (in quotes) and got over a million responses. Just on page 1, there were these:

 

·         Everyone is not a designer.

·         Everyone is not doing it. (about abstinence)

·         Why everyone is not entitled to an opinion.

·         Why everyone is not your prospect.

·         “Everyone” is not your target market. (OK, the quotes make this one different.)

 

It seems that many people use “not everyone is” and “everyone is not” synonymously. Or should I say, everyone does not understand “everyone does not understand” to mean “no one understands.”

 

Dick

________________________________

 

Richard Veit

Department of English

University of North Carolina Wilmington

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a problem in negation

 

Seth,

   I was impressed with Bill's answer also (not the first time and I

hope not the last.) I just wanted to add that I immediately thought of

"All that glitters isn't gold" as following the same pattern. I have

been waiting to post it, hoping another example might come to mind, but

none has. I suspect that's not enough to make it a fixed construction.

But people have found it acceptable enough to repeat it.

 

Craig

 

Katz, Seth wrote:

> Thanks, Bill--beautifully articulated, as usual.  My friend--a biology professor--really appreciated your response.

> Dr. Seth Katz

> Assistant Professor

> Department of English

> Bradley University

> 

> ________________________________

> 

> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Spruiell, William C

> Sent: Wed 9/10/2008 12:04 PM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: a problem in negation

> 

> 

> 

> I suspect that most speakers use a "pragmatic" rather than strictly

> logic-based approach to dealing with negation -- that is, there's an

> immediate jump to "why might someone say this?" that at least partially

> bypasses "which unit does the negative group with?" That's the only way

> I can understand why, for example, "I could care less" and "I couldn't

> care less" are interpreted as synonymous by most people.

> 

> In this particular case, I'd normally think that a speaker saying "All

> people are not Republicans" might be doing so for one of three reasons:

> 

> (1) S/he wants me to interpret it differently from "No-one is a

> Republican," since that's a lot easier if it's what you mean. (This

> gives your (and my) initial reading)

> 

> (2) S/he's having one of those not-infrequent slips of the tongue in

> which the negative you meant didn't parachute in when you wanted it to.

> 

> 

> (3) S/he had a logic class at some point, and is channeling something

> like "For all X such that X are members of the set 'people', X is a

> member of the set 'non-Republican'."

> 

> 

> I'd probably adjust my guesses based on what I knew of the speaker. If

> s/he has a tendency to fixate on the Liar's Paradox and what it means

> for reality, I'd pick #3, especially if s/he occasionally mutters

> something about early Wittgenstein being *so* much better than later

> Wittgenstein.

> 

> 

> Bill Spruiell

> Dept. of English

> Central Michigan University

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth

> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:56 AM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: a problem in negation

> 

> A friend sent me the following example of a 'pet peeve':

> 

>                 "All people are not Republicans" used to mean that there

> are no Republicans,

>                 period.  When I hear this now, though, after a brief

> celebration, I realize

>                 that the speaker meant "not all people are Republicans".

> Sad, but true to

>                 the times.

> 

> It took me awhile to hear his preferred interpretation of the sentence.

> Why do we jump the negation from "Republicans" to "all"? That is, we

> seem to be doing something like taking an existential statement like

> 

>                 There are no people who are Republicans.

>                 There are not people who are Republicans.

> 

> And turning it into

> 

>                 There are people who are not Republicans.

> 

> Why?

> 

> Dr. Seth Katz

> Assistant Professor

> Department of English

> Bradley University

> 

> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> interface at:

>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

> 

> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:

>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

> 

> 

> 

> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:

>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

> 

> 

>  

 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:

     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"

 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/