The sentence is suggesting that United Nations peacekeepers have the power to engage; no other peacekeepers are mentioned, so the "all" would have to apply only to all UN peacekeepers. In that case, UN peacekeepers are only "some" of all peacekeepers.
 
"NFL players are the wrong focal point for football safety" (espn.com). Should we assume this means all football players are the wrong focal point for football safety? (I don't think so) All NFL players? (This is what the sentence seems to suggest)
 
-John

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:41 PM, GERALD W WALTON <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

In the following sentence, would you interpret the term "peacekeepers" as meaning "all peacekeepers" or "some peacekeepers"?

 

My guess is that the person who wrote the sentence meant all.

 

But I think it could be interpreted either way. Take “Eighteen year olds should be allowed to vote.” Readers know there are qualifications—person should have registered, should not have committed a felony. One assumes, I think, that all of the peacekeepers have met certain qualifications and that all are therefore empowered.

 

I don’t think of any linguistic rule that applies.

Gerald

 

 

United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in     offensive operations.

 

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/




--
John Chorazy
English III Honors, AP Lit
Advisor, Panther Press
Pequannock Township High School
973.616.6000
 
 
Noli Timere
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/