Understanding the purported ambiguity in “Every boy didn’t run”












11















I am a com­puter sci­ence pro­fes­sional.
I am read­ing the book Nat­u­ral Lan­guage Un­der­stand­ing by James Allen where he writes:




“Every boy didn’t run” which is am­bigu­ous be­tween the read­ing in which
some boys didn’t run and some did and no boys ran.




As I am not a na­tive English-lan­guage speaker, I couldn’t un­der­stand
the am­bi­gu­ity here. Please ex­plain how the mean­ing can ever be some boys
didn’t run and some did here.






ambiguity negation logic







share|improve this question

























  • @Janus Bahs Jacquet Grammatically ambiguous, as you point out, but importantly it is not idiomatic. In English we never say "Every one didn't...", but "Nobody did...". But one could say "Not every boy went", if that was the meaning we intended.

    – WS2
    Jan 3 at 16:16











  • @WS2 We do sometimes use the construction in both meanings. It’s not the default construction for either meaning, but it can be idiomatic for both. If every is stressed, the ‘not every boy’ meaning is common enough; the other meaning requires a more specific context, but can work: “I went to four different shops and tried on at least fifteen different dresses, and every single dress didn’t fit me!” is quite natural to me and obviously means that none of the dresses fit.

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Jan 3 at 16:24











  • @JanusBahsJacquet Yes, I would agree - provided "every" is heavily stressed, or additional context is provided, as in "Every single dress didn't fit me". In the latter case, it seems the presence of "single" goes some way to remove the ambiguity. It perhaps works better in speech than in written form, since facial expression, body-language etc assist comprehension.

    – WS2
    Jan 3 at 17:41






  • 4





    In mathematical notation, the two interpretations correspond to ¬(∀x∈B r(x)) and ∀x∈B ¬r(x).

    – Dan
    Jan 3 at 22:57











  • I wonder how all those soft hyphens got into the title - the question title is full of invisible soft hyphen characters.

    – user2357112
    Jan 4 at 0:33
















11















I am a com­puter sci­ence pro­fes­sional.
I am read­ing the book Nat­u­ral Lan­guage Un­der­stand­ing by James Allen where he writes:




“Every boy didn’t run” which is am­bigu­ous be­tween the read­ing in which
some boys didn’t run and some did and no boys ran.




As I am not a na­tive English-lan­guage speaker, I couldn’t un­der­stand
the am­bi­gu­ity here. Please ex­plain how the mean­ing can ever be some boys
didn’t run and some did here.






ambiguity negation logic







share|improve this question

























  • @Janus Bahs Jacquet Grammatically ambiguous, as you point out, but importantly it is not idiomatic. In English we never say "Every one didn't...", but "Nobody did...". But one could say "Not every boy went", if that was the meaning we intended.

    – WS2
    Jan 3 at 16:16











  • @WS2 We do sometimes use the construction in both meanings. It’s not the default construction for either meaning, but it can be idiomatic for both. If every is stressed, the ‘not every boy’ meaning is common enough; the other meaning requires a more specific context, but can work: “I went to four different shops and tried on at least fifteen different dresses, and every single dress didn’t fit me!” is quite natural to me and obviously means that none of the dresses fit.

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Jan 3 at 16:24











  • @JanusBahsJacquet Yes, I would agree - provided "every" is heavily stressed, or additional context is provided, as in "Every single dress didn't fit me". In the latter case, it seems the presence of "single" goes some way to remove the ambiguity. It perhaps works better in speech than in written form, since facial expression, body-language etc assist comprehension.

    – WS2
    Jan 3 at 17:41






  • 4





    In mathematical notation, the two interpretations correspond to ¬(∀x∈B r(x)) and ∀x∈B ¬r(x).

    – Dan
    Jan 3 at 22:57











  • I wonder how all those soft hyphens got into the title - the question title is full of invisible soft hyphen characters.

    – user2357112
    Jan 4 at 0:33














11












11








11


2






I am a com­puter sci­ence pro­fes­sional.
I am read­ing the book Nat­u­ral Lan­guage Un­der­stand­ing by James Allen where he writes:




“Every boy didn’t run” which is am­bigu­ous be­tween the read­ing in which
some boys didn’t run and some did and no boys ran.




As I am not a na­tive English-lan­guage speaker, I couldn’t un­der­stand
the am­bi­gu­ity here. Please ex­plain how the mean­ing can ever be some boys
didn’t run and some did here.






ambiguity negation logic







share|improve this question
















I am a com­puter sci­ence pro­fes­sional.
I am read­ing the book Nat­u­ral Lan­guage Un­der­stand­ing by James Allen where he writes:




“Every boy didn’t run” which is am­bigu­ous be­tween the read­ing in which
some boys didn’t run and some did and no boys ran.




As I am not a na­tive English-lan­guage speaker, I couldn’t un­der­stand
the am­bi­gu­ity here. Please ex­plain how the mean­ing can ever be some boys
didn’t run and some did here.






ambiguity negation logic




ambiguity negation logic






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 4 at 12:17









Dan

1,216813




1,216813










asked Jan 3 at 8:13









user8673user8673

1565




1565













  • @Janus Bahs Jacquet Grammatically ambiguous, as you point out, but importantly it is not idiomatic. In English we never say "Every one didn't...", but "Nobody did...". But one could say "Not every boy went", if that was the meaning we intended.

    – WS2
    Jan 3 at 16:16











  • @WS2 We do sometimes use the construction in both meanings. It’s not the default construction for either meaning, but it can be idiomatic for both. If every is stressed, the ‘not every boy’ meaning is common enough; the other meaning requires a more specific context, but can work: “I went to four different shops and tried on at least fifteen different dresses, and every single dress didn’t fit me!” is quite natural to me and obviously means that none of the dresses fit.

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Jan 3 at 16:24











  • @JanusBahsJacquet Yes, I would agree - provided "every" is heavily stressed, or additional context is provided, as in "Every single dress didn't fit me". In the latter case, it seems the presence of "single" goes some way to remove the ambiguity. It perhaps works better in speech than in written form, since facial expression, body-language etc assist comprehension.

    – WS2
    Jan 3 at 17:41






  • 4





    In mathematical notation, the two interpretations correspond to ¬(∀x∈B r(x)) and ∀x∈B ¬r(x).

    – Dan
    Jan 3 at 22:57











  • I wonder how all those soft hyphens got into the title - the question title is full of invisible soft hyphen characters.

    – user2357112
    Jan 4 at 0:33



















  • @Janus Bahs Jacquet Grammatically ambiguous, as you point out, but importantly it is not idiomatic. In English we never say "Every one didn't...", but "Nobody did...". But one could say "Not every boy went", if that was the meaning we intended.

    – WS2
    Jan 3 at 16:16











  • @WS2 We do sometimes use the construction in both meanings. It’s not the default construction for either meaning, but it can be idiomatic for both. If every is stressed, the ‘not every boy’ meaning is common enough; the other meaning requires a more specific context, but can work: “I went to four different shops and tried on at least fifteen different dresses, and every single dress didn’t fit me!” is quite natural to me and obviously means that none of the dresses fit.

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Jan 3 at 16:24











  • @JanusBahsJacquet Yes, I would agree - provided "every" is heavily stressed, or additional context is provided, as in "Every single dress didn't fit me". In the latter case, it seems the presence of "single" goes some way to remove the ambiguity. It perhaps works better in speech than in written form, since facial expression, body-language etc assist comprehension.

    – WS2
    Jan 3 at 17:41






  • 4





    In mathematical notation, the two interpretations correspond to ¬(∀x∈B r(x)) and ∀x∈B ¬r(x).

    – Dan
    Jan 3 at 22:57











  • I wonder how all those soft hyphens got into the title - the question title is full of invisible soft hyphen characters.

    – user2357112
    Jan 4 at 0:33

















@Janus Bahs Jacquet Grammatically ambiguous, as you point out, but importantly it is not idiomatic. In English we never say "Every one didn't...", but "Nobody did...". But one could say "Not every boy went", if that was the meaning we intended.

– WS2
Jan 3 at 16:16





@Janus Bahs Jacquet Grammatically ambiguous, as you point out, but importantly it is not idiomatic. In English we never say "Every one didn't...", but "Nobody did...". But one could say "Not every boy went", if that was the meaning we intended.

– WS2
Jan 3 at 16:16













@WS2 We do sometimes use the construction in both meanings. It’s not the default construction for either meaning, but it can be idiomatic for both. If every is stressed, the ‘not every boy’ meaning is common enough; the other meaning requires a more specific context, but can work: “I went to four different shops and tried on at least fifteen different dresses, and every single dress didn’t fit me!” is quite natural to me and obviously means that none of the dresses fit.

– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jan 3 at 16:24





@WS2 We do sometimes use the construction in both meanings. It’s not the default construction for either meaning, but it can be idiomatic for both. If every is stressed, the ‘not every boy’ meaning is common enough; the other meaning requires a more specific context, but can work: “I went to four different shops and tried on at least fifteen different dresses, and every single dress didn’t fit me!” is quite natural to me and obviously means that none of the dresses fit.

– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jan 3 at 16:24













@JanusBahsJacquet Yes, I would agree - provided "every" is heavily stressed, or additional context is provided, as in "Every single dress didn't fit me". In the latter case, it seems the presence of "single" goes some way to remove the ambiguity. It perhaps works better in speech than in written form, since facial expression, body-language etc assist comprehension.

– WS2
Jan 3 at 17:41





@JanusBahsJacquet Yes, I would agree - provided "every" is heavily stressed, or additional context is provided, as in "Every single dress didn't fit me". In the latter case, it seems the presence of "single" goes some way to remove the ambiguity. It perhaps works better in speech than in written form, since facial expression, body-language etc assist comprehension.

– WS2
Jan 3 at 17:41




4




4





In mathematical notation, the two interpretations correspond to ¬(∀x∈B r(x)) and ∀x∈B ¬r(x).

– Dan
Jan 3 at 22:57





In mathematical notation, the two interpretations correspond to ¬(∀x∈B r(x)) and ∀x∈B ¬r(x).

– Dan
Jan 3 at 22:57













I wonder how all those soft hyphens got into the title - the question title is full of invisible soft hyphen characters.

– user2357112
Jan 4 at 0:33





I wonder how all those soft hyphens got into the title - the question title is full of invisible soft hyphen characters.

– user2357112
Jan 4 at 0:33










10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















19














If "every" is in the scope of "not", it means "It is not the case that every boy ran," or, that is, "Some boy didn't run," or "Not every boy ran." That is the preferred interpretation if every is focused or emphasized: "Every boy didn't run" with rising intonation at the end.



If "not" is in the scope of "every", it means "For every boy it is true that that boy didn't run," or, that is, "No boy ran." For some English speakers, this is not a possible interpretation.






share|improve this answer





















  • 6





    An anecdote: I was taking a course on semantics from Chuck Fillmore at Ohio State, when he walked into the classroom looking breathless. He reported to the class that he had just learned some perfectly sound English speakers understand "every boy didn't run" (or some similar example) to mean that no boy ran. He seemed shocked.

    – Greg Lee
    Jan 3 at 19:51






  • 4





    The use of the word "preferred" is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning of "Every boy didn't run" is that no boy ran, and emphasizing "every" doesn't affect that in the least. Moving the negation to "Not every boy ran" makes the sentence much clearer.

    – Monty Harder
    Jan 3 at 20:08






  • 2





    @MontyHarder And that is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning to me is either, since the sentence is inherently ambiguous. Absent special emphasis and intonation, though, my initial understanding would be that it means “it is not the case that every boy ran”, not “it is the case that no boy ran”. And the emphasis and intonation mentioned in this answer is precisely what can make it unambiguously mean that, excluding the “no boy ran” option entirely. The fact that we disagree so fundamentally on both points here is solid proof that the sentence by itself is ambiguous.

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Jan 3 at 22:45











  • This same kind of ambiguity appears all over the English language. Does "every wall didn't fall" mean all walls remain standing, some walls remain standing, or something else like no walls are standing but some are leaning (didn't fall all the way). The non-ambiguous meaning must come from surrounding context. What about "every waiter didn't show up for work today" or "every drop didn't spill" or "every tax I legitimately owed was paid to the government"

    – geneSummons
    Jan 3 at 22:49











  • This seems correct. From a logical point of view, the sentence doesn't say anything about "kids who ran", so the first interpretation in the book is incorrect. It should be just "some boys didn’t run", not "some boys didn’t run and some did".

    – Eric Duminil
    Jan 4 at 14:04



















10














The quote would be clearer if it spoke of the difference between the reading in which all boys didn’t run and (that in which) some did.



In the positive version “every boy ran”, there is no ambiguity: 100% of the boys ran.



Logically, “every boy didn’t run” follows the same pattern: for each boy x, the statement asserts that x didn’t run. That is, the negation in “didn’t” applies to the action “run”.



The problem is that in English, the form has also been used idiomatically to assert something different: that not all of the boys ran. That is, the negation in didn’t applies to the qualifier “every”.



Here is a classical example:




  • all that glitters is not gold


Wikipedia traces this (or variants) to a Latin quote dated to the 12th century or earlier, and popularised by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice.



The article mentions a 1175 version by the French monk Alain de Lille: "Do not hold everything gold that shines like gold", where the logical meaning matches the literary intent. The version popularised by Shakespeare, however, sounds more catchy even though its logic is wonky.



As a result, the literary meaning of the form “all that (...) is/does not (...)” no longer matches its literal/logical meaning.



One might try to argue that the literary meaning should be deemed ‘incorrect’ or ‘inaccurate’, but it is precisely this kind of idiomatic usage of language that lies behind the ambiguity your quote highlights.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    I believe that this wonkiness in the English language was around long before Shakespeare.

    – Peter Shor
    Jan 3 at 22:37






  • 3





    @PeterShor You mean to say that all wonkiness isn’t the bard’s fault? :P

    – Lawrence
    Jan 4 at 1:09






  • 3





    The French proverb often attributed to Alain de Lille is "Tout ce qui reluit n’est pas or" ("brille" in more modern French). Literally, "All that shines is not gold." The logical meaning does not match the literary intent, either. I can't find any confirmation as to whether these were the exact words of Alain de Lille, though.

    – Peter Shor
    Jan 4 at 15:09



















8














This stack is about usage. First, "every boy didn't run" is a very awkward usage, and would not be used without context. The context will decide which meaning is applicable.




”Your list of possible candidates was way off. The boys on your list didn't run for a student board position."



"Yeah, turns out most of them didn't run."



"No, every boy [on your list] didn't run. You could not have been more wrong."




In this case, the bolded phrase, a perfectly normal usage, sets up the "_______ didn't run" framing that the third speaker repeats. That is why she is using this otherwise awkward form.



Versus




"No, nobody stayed around to make statements. When the police came, everyone ran away."



"That's to be expected from the townies, but are you saying every boy from our school ran? Despite our teachings about morality?



"Well, every boy didn't run. Carl Heinz stayed, the Peterson brothers, Conrad Hamm, which you'd expect... A few others.




In these usages, the meaning pops right out. And this is the kind of usage where "every boy didn't run" is appropriate. It should not be used where it would create an ambiguity. If you do, the reader will infer from context which meaning is most likely, just as you did above.






share|improve this answer

































    6














    A linguistic perspective might help here.



    We (linguists) typically talk of movement - a word starts in one place in the sentence and moves to another before it is spoken. Ignoring the technical aspects of that (and ignoring that the verb has to change slightly depending on how the sentence is written), there are two possible starting sentences here:




    1. Not every boy did run


    2. Every boy did not run



    In the first, we get some boys didn’t run and some did and in the second we get no boys ran. In both of these cases, it is possible for not to move to did and become didn't, leaving us with the reading "Every boy didn't run". The first is also rather stilted and sounds weird. As @GregLee pointed out, emphasis helps with clarifying which meaning is intended.



    For these reasons, it's more common (in writing) to see the phrases




    1. Not every boy ran


    2. No boy ran



    Because those are unambiguous.






    share|improve this answer
























    • My thought was that "Every boy didn't run" doesn't survive double negation without having to decide where to put the not in "Every boy ran". I think this answer covers it nicely.

      – traktor53
      Jan 4 at 3:11



















    4














    I think it's meant to be ambiguous between



    only true if 0% ran
    or
    not 100% ran (i.e. true if 50% ran).



    Edit:
    I found the excerpt of the book in question - looks like I was right:




    In addition, operators such as negation and tense are also scope sensitive. For example, the sentence Every boy didn't run is ambiguous between the reading in which some boys didn't run and some did, that is,
    (NOT (EVERY bl: (BOY1 bl) (RUN1 bl)))
    and the reading where no boys ran, that is,
    (EVERY bl : (BOY1 bl) (NOT (RUN 1 bl))) These two readings are captured by the single logical form







    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      Ah, the OP has incorrectly interpreted the sentence. The book doesn't say the two options are "some boys didn't run" and "some did", rather it says the two options are "some boys didn't run and some did" and "no boys ran".

      – AndyT
      Jan 3 at 10:25











    • @AndyT To be fair, the original author also wrote an incorrect interpretation. The sentence “Every boy didn’t run” can either mean "At least one boy didn't run" or "No boy ran". It doesn't tell anything about "kids who ran". So it's wrong to infer "Some did run" from the original sentence, whichever option is chosen.

      – Eric Duminil
      Jan 4 at 14:03



















    1














    Of course "didn't" here is a contraction for "did not". It's ambiguous because it is not clear what "not" refers to.



    If "not" refers to "run", then it's "(every boy) did (not run)". That is, every boy did this. What did they do? They did not run.



    If "not" refers to "every", then it's "(not every boy) did (run)". That is, not every boy did this, so some of the boys did not do this. What is it that some of the boys did not do? Run.



    I, and I think most English readers, would generally assume that the first meaning was meant.



    A more clear way to say it if you meant that none of the boys ran would be to say, "None of the boys ran." If you meant to say that some ran and some didn't, you could say, "Not every boy ran".






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      I really don't think most English speakers would interpret it like this—possibly most of the ones who have taken a course which deals in logic might.

      – Peter Shor
      Jan 3 at 17:49













    • @PeterShor Maybe so, I was basically guessing about which way most readers would take it, and I tried to indicate that with the words "I think". Anyway, that's the point: it's ambiguous.

      – Jay
      Jan 3 at 20:17



















    1














    Consider the following dialog where two people describe an incident:



    "There was panic. Every boy ran for cover."



    "Every boy didn't run."



    It might be more "formally correct" if the second speaker had said "Not every boy ran," but the sentence he actually used emphasised the difference between the two speakers' descriptions - the second speaker is emphasising the difference in behaviour between running and not running, not the the number of boys who didn't run.



    On the other hand, if you consider the sentence as a logical proposition and ignore the context in which it was spoken or written, "Every boy didn't run" is logically identical to "No boy ran".






    share|improve this answer































      1















      “Every boy didn’t run”




      is just not how you say anything. It's not grammatical. So it actually doesn't mean anything at all.



      But an English speaker wants to squeeze some meaning out of it. What is called ambiguity is really the different ways one imagines the speaker intended but fouled up.



      English (or human language) isn't formal logic, so the words don't apply necessarily in a strict order. So forcing one meaning on the phrase would be translated back into words as




      Not every boy ran (there are some boys who did not run but some probably did, otherwise you would say 'no boy ran'),




      or




      No boy ran (For every boy, it is not the case that the boy ran)




      as though 'every boy' is like a logical universal quantifier over all boys and the predicate says 'the boy did not run'.



      It is problematic to say the sentence is ambiguous because it is not a pattern interpretable directly in English. So you have to guess what is meant, and in those collection of words, there are pretty much only two directions to go.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 3





        While it is easy to agree that 'every boy didn't run' is a formulation that it would inadvisable to use, is it really ungrammatical? Which rule of grammar is violated by it?

        – jsw29
        Jan 4 at 1:40



















      0














      The way I understand it is that:




      Every boy didn't run




      could be read as the negation of:




      Every boy did run




      thus, the negated sentence is equivalent to:




      It is not true that every boy did run




      and the above statement is already true if even a single boy failed to run (even if all the other boys succesfully escaped).






      share|improve this answer































        0














        But it may happen with “all” adjectives quoting totatility or infinite. The negative form shouldn’t exactly mean the negation of its affirmative sentence:
        “All the boys run” vs “all the boys didn’t run”;
        “Zero boys run” vs “zero boys didn’t run”;
        “Infinite number of stars covered the sky” vs “infinite number of stars didn’t cover the sky “
        “Millions of drops fell down” vs “millions of drops didn’t fall down”,
        Etc...



        Isn’t there ambiguity in all of these negative forms? There shouldn’t be any problem to interpret when speaking, but context or perifrasis to avoid confusion is needed when writing. That is happening with Spanish and in all Latin languages too, because negative form doesn’t negate the adjective, only the verb is negated. Anyway, I agree that the use of those negative forms is weird, not only in English. Actually, if we want to negate the adjective we have to say the adverb “not” before the adjective itself: “Not every/all/infinite, etc.”






        share|improve this answer

























          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "97"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479640%2funderstanding-the-purported-ambiguity-in-every-boy-didn-t-run%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          10 Answers
          10






          active

          oldest

          votes








          10 Answers
          10






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          19














          If "every" is in the scope of "not", it means "It is not the case that every boy ran," or, that is, "Some boy didn't run," or "Not every boy ran." That is the preferred interpretation if every is focused or emphasized: "Every boy didn't run" with rising intonation at the end.



          If "not" is in the scope of "every", it means "For every boy it is true that that boy didn't run," or, that is, "No boy ran." For some English speakers, this is not a possible interpretation.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 6





            An anecdote: I was taking a course on semantics from Chuck Fillmore at Ohio State, when he walked into the classroom looking breathless. He reported to the class that he had just learned some perfectly sound English speakers understand "every boy didn't run" (or some similar example) to mean that no boy ran. He seemed shocked.

            – Greg Lee
            Jan 3 at 19:51






          • 4





            The use of the word "preferred" is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning of "Every boy didn't run" is that no boy ran, and emphasizing "every" doesn't affect that in the least. Moving the negation to "Not every boy ran" makes the sentence much clearer.

            – Monty Harder
            Jan 3 at 20:08






          • 2





            @MontyHarder And that is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning to me is either, since the sentence is inherently ambiguous. Absent special emphasis and intonation, though, my initial understanding would be that it means “it is not the case that every boy ran”, not “it is the case that no boy ran”. And the emphasis and intonation mentioned in this answer is precisely what can make it unambiguously mean that, excluding the “no boy ran” option entirely. The fact that we disagree so fundamentally on both points here is solid proof that the sentence by itself is ambiguous.

            – Janus Bahs Jacquet
            Jan 3 at 22:45











          • This same kind of ambiguity appears all over the English language. Does "every wall didn't fall" mean all walls remain standing, some walls remain standing, or something else like no walls are standing but some are leaning (didn't fall all the way). The non-ambiguous meaning must come from surrounding context. What about "every waiter didn't show up for work today" or "every drop didn't spill" or "every tax I legitimately owed was paid to the government"

            – geneSummons
            Jan 3 at 22:49











          • This seems correct. From a logical point of view, the sentence doesn't say anything about "kids who ran", so the first interpretation in the book is incorrect. It should be just "some boys didn’t run", not "some boys didn’t run and some did".

            – Eric Duminil
            Jan 4 at 14:04
















          19














          If "every" is in the scope of "not", it means "It is not the case that every boy ran," or, that is, "Some boy didn't run," or "Not every boy ran." That is the preferred interpretation if every is focused or emphasized: "Every boy didn't run" with rising intonation at the end.



          If "not" is in the scope of "every", it means "For every boy it is true that that boy didn't run," or, that is, "No boy ran." For some English speakers, this is not a possible interpretation.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 6





            An anecdote: I was taking a course on semantics from Chuck Fillmore at Ohio State, when he walked into the classroom looking breathless. He reported to the class that he had just learned some perfectly sound English speakers understand "every boy didn't run" (or some similar example) to mean that no boy ran. He seemed shocked.

            – Greg Lee
            Jan 3 at 19:51






          • 4





            The use of the word "preferred" is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning of "Every boy didn't run" is that no boy ran, and emphasizing "every" doesn't affect that in the least. Moving the negation to "Not every boy ran" makes the sentence much clearer.

            – Monty Harder
            Jan 3 at 20:08






          • 2





            @MontyHarder And that is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning to me is either, since the sentence is inherently ambiguous. Absent special emphasis and intonation, though, my initial understanding would be that it means “it is not the case that every boy ran”, not “it is the case that no boy ran”. And the emphasis and intonation mentioned in this answer is precisely what can make it unambiguously mean that, excluding the “no boy ran” option entirely. The fact that we disagree so fundamentally on both points here is solid proof that the sentence by itself is ambiguous.

            – Janus Bahs Jacquet
            Jan 3 at 22:45











          • This same kind of ambiguity appears all over the English language. Does "every wall didn't fall" mean all walls remain standing, some walls remain standing, or something else like no walls are standing but some are leaning (didn't fall all the way). The non-ambiguous meaning must come from surrounding context. What about "every waiter didn't show up for work today" or "every drop didn't spill" or "every tax I legitimately owed was paid to the government"

            – geneSummons
            Jan 3 at 22:49











          • This seems correct. From a logical point of view, the sentence doesn't say anything about "kids who ran", so the first interpretation in the book is incorrect. It should be just "some boys didn’t run", not "some boys didn’t run and some did".

            – Eric Duminil
            Jan 4 at 14:04














          19












          19








          19







          If "every" is in the scope of "not", it means "It is not the case that every boy ran," or, that is, "Some boy didn't run," or "Not every boy ran." That is the preferred interpretation if every is focused or emphasized: "Every boy didn't run" with rising intonation at the end.



          If "not" is in the scope of "every", it means "For every boy it is true that that boy didn't run," or, that is, "No boy ran." For some English speakers, this is not a possible interpretation.






          share|improve this answer















          If "every" is in the scope of "not", it means "It is not the case that every boy ran," or, that is, "Some boy didn't run," or "Not every boy ran." That is the preferred interpretation if every is focused or emphasized: "Every boy didn't run" with rising intonation at the end.



          If "not" is in the scope of "every", it means "For every boy it is true that that boy didn't run," or, that is, "No boy ran." For some English speakers, this is not a possible interpretation.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 3 at 9:53

























          answered Jan 3 at 9:36









          Greg LeeGreg Lee

          14.7k2932




          14.7k2932








          • 6





            An anecdote: I was taking a course on semantics from Chuck Fillmore at Ohio State, when he walked into the classroom looking breathless. He reported to the class that he had just learned some perfectly sound English speakers understand "every boy didn't run" (or some similar example) to mean that no boy ran. He seemed shocked.

            – Greg Lee
            Jan 3 at 19:51






          • 4





            The use of the word "preferred" is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning of "Every boy didn't run" is that no boy ran, and emphasizing "every" doesn't affect that in the least. Moving the negation to "Not every boy ran" makes the sentence much clearer.

            – Monty Harder
            Jan 3 at 20:08






          • 2





            @MontyHarder And that is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning to me is either, since the sentence is inherently ambiguous. Absent special emphasis and intonation, though, my initial understanding would be that it means “it is not the case that every boy ran”, not “it is the case that no boy ran”. And the emphasis and intonation mentioned in this answer is precisely what can make it unambiguously mean that, excluding the “no boy ran” option entirely. The fact that we disagree so fundamentally on both points here is solid proof that the sentence by itself is ambiguous.

            – Janus Bahs Jacquet
            Jan 3 at 22:45











          • This same kind of ambiguity appears all over the English language. Does "every wall didn't fall" mean all walls remain standing, some walls remain standing, or something else like no walls are standing but some are leaning (didn't fall all the way). The non-ambiguous meaning must come from surrounding context. What about "every waiter didn't show up for work today" or "every drop didn't spill" or "every tax I legitimately owed was paid to the government"

            – geneSummons
            Jan 3 at 22:49











          • This seems correct. From a logical point of view, the sentence doesn't say anything about "kids who ran", so the first interpretation in the book is incorrect. It should be just "some boys didn’t run", not "some boys didn’t run and some did".

            – Eric Duminil
            Jan 4 at 14:04














          • 6





            An anecdote: I was taking a course on semantics from Chuck Fillmore at Ohio State, when he walked into the classroom looking breathless. He reported to the class that he had just learned some perfectly sound English speakers understand "every boy didn't run" (or some similar example) to mean that no boy ran. He seemed shocked.

            – Greg Lee
            Jan 3 at 19:51






          • 4





            The use of the word "preferred" is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning of "Every boy didn't run" is that no boy ran, and emphasizing "every" doesn't affect that in the least. Moving the negation to "Not every boy ran" makes the sentence much clearer.

            – Monty Harder
            Jan 3 at 20:08






          • 2





            @MontyHarder And that is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning to me is either, since the sentence is inherently ambiguous. Absent special emphasis and intonation, though, my initial understanding would be that it means “it is not the case that every boy ran”, not “it is the case that no boy ran”. And the emphasis and intonation mentioned in this answer is precisely what can make it unambiguously mean that, excluding the “no boy ran” option entirely. The fact that we disagree so fundamentally on both points here is solid proof that the sentence by itself is ambiguous.

            – Janus Bahs Jacquet
            Jan 3 at 22:45











          • This same kind of ambiguity appears all over the English language. Does "every wall didn't fall" mean all walls remain standing, some walls remain standing, or something else like no walls are standing but some are leaning (didn't fall all the way). The non-ambiguous meaning must come from surrounding context. What about "every waiter didn't show up for work today" or "every drop didn't spill" or "every tax I legitimately owed was paid to the government"

            – geneSummons
            Jan 3 at 22:49











          • This seems correct. From a logical point of view, the sentence doesn't say anything about "kids who ran", so the first interpretation in the book is incorrect. It should be just "some boys didn’t run", not "some boys didn’t run and some did".

            – Eric Duminil
            Jan 4 at 14:04








          6




          6





          An anecdote: I was taking a course on semantics from Chuck Fillmore at Ohio State, when he walked into the classroom looking breathless. He reported to the class that he had just learned some perfectly sound English speakers understand "every boy didn't run" (or some similar example) to mean that no boy ran. He seemed shocked.

          – Greg Lee
          Jan 3 at 19:51





          An anecdote: I was taking a course on semantics from Chuck Fillmore at Ohio State, when he walked into the classroom looking breathless. He reported to the class that he had just learned some perfectly sound English speakers understand "every boy didn't run" (or some similar example) to mean that no boy ran. He seemed shocked.

          – Greg Lee
          Jan 3 at 19:51




          4




          4





          The use of the word "preferred" is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning of "Every boy didn't run" is that no boy ran, and emphasizing "every" doesn't affect that in the least. Moving the negation to "Not every boy ran" makes the sentence much clearer.

          – Monty Harder
          Jan 3 at 20:08





          The use of the word "preferred" is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning of "Every boy didn't run" is that no boy ran, and emphasizing "every" doesn't affect that in the least. Moving the negation to "Not every boy ran" makes the sentence much clearer.

          – Monty Harder
          Jan 3 at 20:08




          2




          2





          @MontyHarder And that is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning to me is either, since the sentence is inherently ambiguous. Absent special emphasis and intonation, though, my initial understanding would be that it means “it is not the case that every boy ran”, not “it is the case that no boy ran”. And the emphasis and intonation mentioned in this answer is precisely what can make it unambiguously mean that, excluding the “no boy ran” option entirely. The fact that we disagree so fundamentally on both points here is solid proof that the sentence by itself is ambiguous.

          – Janus Bahs Jacquet
          Jan 3 at 22:45





          @MontyHarder And that is your opinion, of course. The clear, literal meaning to me is either, since the sentence is inherently ambiguous. Absent special emphasis and intonation, though, my initial understanding would be that it means “it is not the case that every boy ran”, not “it is the case that no boy ran”. And the emphasis and intonation mentioned in this answer is precisely what can make it unambiguously mean that, excluding the “no boy ran” option entirely. The fact that we disagree so fundamentally on both points here is solid proof that the sentence by itself is ambiguous.

          – Janus Bahs Jacquet
          Jan 3 at 22:45













          This same kind of ambiguity appears all over the English language. Does "every wall didn't fall" mean all walls remain standing, some walls remain standing, or something else like no walls are standing but some are leaning (didn't fall all the way). The non-ambiguous meaning must come from surrounding context. What about "every waiter didn't show up for work today" or "every drop didn't spill" or "every tax I legitimately owed was paid to the government"

          – geneSummons
          Jan 3 at 22:49





          This same kind of ambiguity appears all over the English language. Does "every wall didn't fall" mean all walls remain standing, some walls remain standing, or something else like no walls are standing but some are leaning (didn't fall all the way). The non-ambiguous meaning must come from surrounding context. What about "every waiter didn't show up for work today" or "every drop didn't spill" or "every tax I legitimately owed was paid to the government"

          – geneSummons
          Jan 3 at 22:49













          This seems correct. From a logical point of view, the sentence doesn't say anything about "kids who ran", so the first interpretation in the book is incorrect. It should be just "some boys didn’t run", not "some boys didn’t run and some did".

          – Eric Duminil
          Jan 4 at 14:04





          This seems correct. From a logical point of view, the sentence doesn't say anything about "kids who ran", so the first interpretation in the book is incorrect. It should be just "some boys didn’t run", not "some boys didn’t run and some did".

          – Eric Duminil
          Jan 4 at 14:04













          10














          The quote would be clearer if it spoke of the difference between the reading in which all boys didn’t run and (that in which) some did.



          In the positive version “every boy ran”, there is no ambiguity: 100% of the boys ran.



          Logically, “every boy didn’t run” follows the same pattern: for each boy x, the statement asserts that x didn’t run. That is, the negation in “didn’t” applies to the action “run”.



          The problem is that in English, the form has also been used idiomatically to assert something different: that not all of the boys ran. That is, the negation in didn’t applies to the qualifier “every”.



          Here is a classical example:




          • all that glitters is not gold


          Wikipedia traces this (or variants) to a Latin quote dated to the 12th century or earlier, and popularised by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice.



          The article mentions a 1175 version by the French monk Alain de Lille: "Do not hold everything gold that shines like gold", where the logical meaning matches the literary intent. The version popularised by Shakespeare, however, sounds more catchy even though its logic is wonky.



          As a result, the literary meaning of the form “all that (...) is/does not (...)” no longer matches its literal/logical meaning.



          One might try to argue that the literary meaning should be deemed ‘incorrect’ or ‘inaccurate’, but it is precisely this kind of idiomatic usage of language that lies behind the ambiguity your quote highlights.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            I believe that this wonkiness in the English language was around long before Shakespeare.

            – Peter Shor
            Jan 3 at 22:37






          • 3





            @PeterShor You mean to say that all wonkiness isn’t the bard’s fault? :P

            – Lawrence
            Jan 4 at 1:09






          • 3





            The French proverb often attributed to Alain de Lille is "Tout ce qui reluit n’est pas or" ("brille" in more modern French). Literally, "All that shines is not gold." The logical meaning does not match the literary intent, either. I can't find any confirmation as to whether these were the exact words of Alain de Lille, though.

            – Peter Shor
            Jan 4 at 15:09
















          10














          The quote would be clearer if it spoke of the difference between the reading in which all boys didn’t run and (that in which) some did.



          In the positive version “every boy ran”, there is no ambiguity: 100% of the boys ran.



          Logically, “every boy didn’t run” follows the same pattern: for each boy x, the statement asserts that x didn’t run. That is, the negation in “didn’t” applies to the action “run”.



          The problem is that in English, the form has also been used idiomatically to assert something different: that not all of the boys ran. That is, the negation in didn’t applies to the qualifier “every”.



          Here is a classical example:




          • all that glitters is not gold


          Wikipedia traces this (or variants) to a Latin quote dated to the 12th century or earlier, and popularised by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice.



          The article mentions a 1175 version by the French monk Alain de Lille: "Do not hold everything gold that shines like gold", where the logical meaning matches the literary intent. The version popularised by Shakespeare, however, sounds more catchy even though its logic is wonky.



          As a result, the literary meaning of the form “all that (...) is/does not (...)” no longer matches its literal/logical meaning.



          One might try to argue that the literary meaning should be deemed ‘incorrect’ or ‘inaccurate’, but it is precisely this kind of idiomatic usage of language that lies behind the ambiguity your quote highlights.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            I believe that this wonkiness in the English language was around long before Shakespeare.

            – Peter Shor
            Jan 3 at 22:37






          • 3





            @PeterShor You mean to say that all wonkiness isn’t the bard’s fault? :P

            – Lawrence
            Jan 4 at 1:09






          • 3





            The French proverb often attributed to Alain de Lille is "Tout ce qui reluit n’est pas or" ("brille" in more modern French). Literally, "All that shines is not gold." The logical meaning does not match the literary intent, either. I can't find any confirmation as to whether these were the exact words of Alain de Lille, though.

            – Peter Shor
            Jan 4 at 15:09














          10












          10








          10







          The quote would be clearer if it spoke of the difference between the reading in which all boys didn’t run and (that in which) some did.



          In the positive version “every boy ran”, there is no ambiguity: 100% of the boys ran.



          Logically, “every boy didn’t run” follows the same pattern: for each boy x, the statement asserts that x didn’t run. That is, the negation in “didn’t” applies to the action “run”.



          The problem is that in English, the form has also been used idiomatically to assert something different: that not all of the boys ran. That is, the negation in didn’t applies to the qualifier “every”.



          Here is a classical example:




          • all that glitters is not gold


          Wikipedia traces this (or variants) to a Latin quote dated to the 12th century or earlier, and popularised by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice.



          The article mentions a 1175 version by the French monk Alain de Lille: "Do not hold everything gold that shines like gold", where the logical meaning matches the literary intent. The version popularised by Shakespeare, however, sounds more catchy even though its logic is wonky.



          As a result, the literary meaning of the form “all that (...) is/does not (...)” no longer matches its literal/logical meaning.



          One might try to argue that the literary meaning should be deemed ‘incorrect’ or ‘inaccurate’, but it is precisely this kind of idiomatic usage of language that lies behind the ambiguity your quote highlights.






          share|improve this answer















          The quote would be clearer if it spoke of the difference between the reading in which all boys didn’t run and (that in which) some did.



          In the positive version “every boy ran”, there is no ambiguity: 100% of the boys ran.



          Logically, “every boy didn’t run” follows the same pattern: for each boy x, the statement asserts that x didn’t run. That is, the negation in “didn’t” applies to the action “run”.



          The problem is that in English, the form has also been used idiomatically to assert something different: that not all of the boys ran. That is, the negation in didn’t applies to the qualifier “every”.



          Here is a classical example:




          • all that glitters is not gold


          Wikipedia traces this (or variants) to a Latin quote dated to the 12th century or earlier, and popularised by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice.



          The article mentions a 1175 version by the French monk Alain de Lille: "Do not hold everything gold that shines like gold", where the logical meaning matches the literary intent. The version popularised by Shakespeare, however, sounds more catchy even though its logic is wonky.



          As a result, the literary meaning of the form “all that (...) is/does not (...)” no longer matches its literal/logical meaning.



          One might try to argue that the literary meaning should be deemed ‘incorrect’ or ‘inaccurate’, but it is precisely this kind of idiomatic usage of language that lies behind the ambiguity your quote highlights.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 3 at 9:01

























          answered Jan 3 at 8:54









          LawrenceLawrence

          31.3k563111




          31.3k563111








          • 1





            I believe that this wonkiness in the English language was around long before Shakespeare.

            – Peter Shor
            Jan 3 at 22:37






          • 3





            @PeterShor You mean to say that all wonkiness isn’t the bard’s fault? :P

            – Lawrence
            Jan 4 at 1:09






          • 3





            The French proverb often attributed to Alain de Lille is "Tout ce qui reluit n’est pas or" ("brille" in more modern French). Literally, "All that shines is not gold." The logical meaning does not match the literary intent, either. I can't find any confirmation as to whether these were the exact words of Alain de Lille, though.

            – Peter Shor
            Jan 4 at 15:09














          • 1





            I believe that this wonkiness in the English language was around long before Shakespeare.

            – Peter Shor
            Jan 3 at 22:37






          • 3





            @PeterShor You mean to say that all wonkiness isn’t the bard’s fault? :P

            – Lawrence
            Jan 4 at 1:09






          • 3





            The French proverb often attributed to Alain de Lille is "Tout ce qui reluit n’est pas or" ("brille" in more modern French). Literally, "All that shines is not gold." The logical meaning does not match the literary intent, either. I can't find any confirmation as to whether these were the exact words of Alain de Lille, though.

            – Peter Shor
            Jan 4 at 15:09








          1




          1





          I believe that this wonkiness in the English language was around long before Shakespeare.

          – Peter Shor
          Jan 3 at 22:37





          I believe that this wonkiness in the English language was around long before Shakespeare.

          – Peter Shor
          Jan 3 at 22:37




          3




          3





          @PeterShor You mean to say that all wonkiness isn’t the bard’s fault? :P

          – Lawrence
          Jan 4 at 1:09





          @PeterShor You mean to say that all wonkiness isn’t the bard’s fault? :P

          – Lawrence
          Jan 4 at 1:09




          3




          3





          The French proverb often attributed to Alain de Lille is "Tout ce qui reluit n’est pas or" ("brille" in more modern French). Literally, "All that shines is not gold." The logical meaning does not match the literary intent, either. I can't find any confirmation as to whether these were the exact words of Alain de Lille, though.

          – Peter Shor
          Jan 4 at 15:09





          The French proverb often attributed to Alain de Lille is "Tout ce qui reluit n’est pas or" ("brille" in more modern French). Literally, "All that shines is not gold." The logical meaning does not match the literary intent, either. I can't find any confirmation as to whether these were the exact words of Alain de Lille, though.

          – Peter Shor
          Jan 4 at 15:09











          8














          This stack is about usage. First, "every boy didn't run" is a very awkward usage, and would not be used without context. The context will decide which meaning is applicable.




          ”Your list of possible candidates was way off. The boys on your list didn't run for a student board position."



          "Yeah, turns out most of them didn't run."



          "No, every boy [on your list] didn't run. You could not have been more wrong."




          In this case, the bolded phrase, a perfectly normal usage, sets up the "_______ didn't run" framing that the third speaker repeats. That is why she is using this otherwise awkward form.



          Versus




          "No, nobody stayed around to make statements. When the police came, everyone ran away."



          "That's to be expected from the townies, but are you saying every boy from our school ran? Despite our teachings about morality?



          "Well, every boy didn't run. Carl Heinz stayed, the Peterson brothers, Conrad Hamm, which you'd expect... A few others.




          In these usages, the meaning pops right out. And this is the kind of usage where "every boy didn't run" is appropriate. It should not be used where it would create an ambiguity. If you do, the reader will infer from context which meaning is most likely, just as you did above.






          share|improve this answer






























            8














            This stack is about usage. First, "every boy didn't run" is a very awkward usage, and would not be used without context. The context will decide which meaning is applicable.




            ”Your list of possible candidates was way off. The boys on your list didn't run for a student board position."



            "Yeah, turns out most of them didn't run."



            "No, every boy [on your list] didn't run. You could not have been more wrong."




            In this case, the bolded phrase, a perfectly normal usage, sets up the "_______ didn't run" framing that the third speaker repeats. That is why she is using this otherwise awkward form.



            Versus




            "No, nobody stayed around to make statements. When the police came, everyone ran away."



            "That's to be expected from the townies, but are you saying every boy from our school ran? Despite our teachings about morality?



            "Well, every boy didn't run. Carl Heinz stayed, the Peterson brothers, Conrad Hamm, which you'd expect... A few others.




            In these usages, the meaning pops right out. And this is the kind of usage where "every boy didn't run" is appropriate. It should not be used where it would create an ambiguity. If you do, the reader will infer from context which meaning is most likely, just as you did above.






            share|improve this answer




























              8












              8








              8







              This stack is about usage. First, "every boy didn't run" is a very awkward usage, and would not be used without context. The context will decide which meaning is applicable.




              ”Your list of possible candidates was way off. The boys on your list didn't run for a student board position."



              "Yeah, turns out most of them didn't run."



              "No, every boy [on your list] didn't run. You could not have been more wrong."




              In this case, the bolded phrase, a perfectly normal usage, sets up the "_______ didn't run" framing that the third speaker repeats. That is why she is using this otherwise awkward form.



              Versus




              "No, nobody stayed around to make statements. When the police came, everyone ran away."



              "That's to be expected from the townies, but are you saying every boy from our school ran? Despite our teachings about morality?



              "Well, every boy didn't run. Carl Heinz stayed, the Peterson brothers, Conrad Hamm, which you'd expect... A few others.




              In these usages, the meaning pops right out. And this is the kind of usage where "every boy didn't run" is appropriate. It should not be used where it would create an ambiguity. If you do, the reader will infer from context which meaning is most likely, just as you did above.






              share|improve this answer















              This stack is about usage. First, "every boy didn't run" is a very awkward usage, and would not be used without context. The context will decide which meaning is applicable.




              ”Your list of possible candidates was way off. The boys on your list didn't run for a student board position."



              "Yeah, turns out most of them didn't run."



              "No, every boy [on your list] didn't run. You could not have been more wrong."




              In this case, the bolded phrase, a perfectly normal usage, sets up the "_______ didn't run" framing that the third speaker repeats. That is why she is using this otherwise awkward form.



              Versus




              "No, nobody stayed around to make statements. When the police came, everyone ran away."



              "That's to be expected from the townies, but are you saying every boy from our school ran? Despite our teachings about morality?



              "Well, every boy didn't run. Carl Heinz stayed, the Peterson brothers, Conrad Hamm, which you'd expect... A few others.




              In these usages, the meaning pops right out. And this is the kind of usage where "every boy didn't run" is appropriate. It should not be used where it would create an ambiguity. If you do, the reader will infer from context which meaning is most likely, just as you did above.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jan 3 at 22:36

























              answered Jan 3 at 22:29









              HarperHarper

              78215




              78215























                  6














                  A linguistic perspective might help here.



                  We (linguists) typically talk of movement - a word starts in one place in the sentence and moves to another before it is spoken. Ignoring the technical aspects of that (and ignoring that the verb has to change slightly depending on how the sentence is written), there are two possible starting sentences here:




                  1. Not every boy did run


                  2. Every boy did not run



                  In the first, we get some boys didn’t run and some did and in the second we get no boys ran. In both of these cases, it is possible for not to move to did and become didn't, leaving us with the reading "Every boy didn't run". The first is also rather stilted and sounds weird. As @GregLee pointed out, emphasis helps with clarifying which meaning is intended.



                  For these reasons, it's more common (in writing) to see the phrases




                  1. Not every boy ran


                  2. No boy ran



                  Because those are unambiguous.






                  share|improve this answer
























                  • My thought was that "Every boy didn't run" doesn't survive double negation without having to decide where to put the not in "Every boy ran". I think this answer covers it nicely.

                    – traktor53
                    Jan 4 at 3:11
















                  6














                  A linguistic perspective might help here.



                  We (linguists) typically talk of movement - a word starts in one place in the sentence and moves to another before it is spoken. Ignoring the technical aspects of that (and ignoring that the verb has to change slightly depending on how the sentence is written), there are two possible starting sentences here:




                  1. Not every boy did run


                  2. Every boy did not run



                  In the first, we get some boys didn’t run and some did and in the second we get no boys ran. In both of these cases, it is possible for not to move to did and become didn't, leaving us with the reading "Every boy didn't run". The first is also rather stilted and sounds weird. As @GregLee pointed out, emphasis helps with clarifying which meaning is intended.



                  For these reasons, it's more common (in writing) to see the phrases




                  1. Not every boy ran


                  2. No boy ran



                  Because those are unambiguous.






                  share|improve this answer
























                  • My thought was that "Every boy didn't run" doesn't survive double negation without having to decide where to put the not in "Every boy ran". I think this answer covers it nicely.

                    – traktor53
                    Jan 4 at 3:11














                  6












                  6








                  6







                  A linguistic perspective might help here.



                  We (linguists) typically talk of movement - a word starts in one place in the sentence and moves to another before it is spoken. Ignoring the technical aspects of that (and ignoring that the verb has to change slightly depending on how the sentence is written), there are two possible starting sentences here:




                  1. Not every boy did run


                  2. Every boy did not run



                  In the first, we get some boys didn’t run and some did and in the second we get no boys ran. In both of these cases, it is possible for not to move to did and become didn't, leaving us with the reading "Every boy didn't run". The first is also rather stilted and sounds weird. As @GregLee pointed out, emphasis helps with clarifying which meaning is intended.



                  For these reasons, it's more common (in writing) to see the phrases




                  1. Not every boy ran


                  2. No boy ran



                  Because those are unambiguous.






                  share|improve this answer













                  A linguistic perspective might help here.



                  We (linguists) typically talk of movement - a word starts in one place in the sentence and moves to another before it is spoken. Ignoring the technical aspects of that (and ignoring that the verb has to change slightly depending on how the sentence is written), there are two possible starting sentences here:




                  1. Not every boy did run


                  2. Every boy did not run



                  In the first, we get some boys didn’t run and some did and in the second we get no boys ran. In both of these cases, it is possible for not to move to did and become didn't, leaving us with the reading "Every boy didn't run". The first is also rather stilted and sounds weird. As @GregLee pointed out, emphasis helps with clarifying which meaning is intended.



                  For these reasons, it's more common (in writing) to see the phrases




                  1. Not every boy ran


                  2. No boy ran



                  Because those are unambiguous.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 3 at 18:15









                  SpitemasterSpitemaster

                  1651




                  1651













                  • My thought was that "Every boy didn't run" doesn't survive double negation without having to decide where to put the not in "Every boy ran". I think this answer covers it nicely.

                    – traktor53
                    Jan 4 at 3:11



















                  • My thought was that "Every boy didn't run" doesn't survive double negation without having to decide where to put the not in "Every boy ran". I think this answer covers it nicely.

                    – traktor53
                    Jan 4 at 3:11

















                  My thought was that "Every boy didn't run" doesn't survive double negation without having to decide where to put the not in "Every boy ran". I think this answer covers it nicely.

                  – traktor53
                  Jan 4 at 3:11





                  My thought was that "Every boy didn't run" doesn't survive double negation without having to decide where to put the not in "Every boy ran". I think this answer covers it nicely.

                  – traktor53
                  Jan 4 at 3:11











                  4














                  I think it's meant to be ambiguous between



                  only true if 0% ran
                  or
                  not 100% ran (i.e. true if 50% ran).



                  Edit:
                  I found the excerpt of the book in question - looks like I was right:




                  In addition, operators such as negation and tense are also scope sensitive. For example, the sentence Every boy didn't run is ambiguous between the reading in which some boys didn't run and some did, that is,
                  (NOT (EVERY bl: (BOY1 bl) (RUN1 bl)))
                  and the reading where no boys ran, that is,
                  (EVERY bl : (BOY1 bl) (NOT (RUN 1 bl))) These two readings are captured by the single logical form







                  share|improve this answer





















                  • 1





                    Ah, the OP has incorrectly interpreted the sentence. The book doesn't say the two options are "some boys didn't run" and "some did", rather it says the two options are "some boys didn't run and some did" and "no boys ran".

                    – AndyT
                    Jan 3 at 10:25











                  • @AndyT To be fair, the original author also wrote an incorrect interpretation. The sentence “Every boy didn’t run” can either mean "At least one boy didn't run" or "No boy ran". It doesn't tell anything about "kids who ran". So it's wrong to infer "Some did run" from the original sentence, whichever option is chosen.

                    – Eric Duminil
                    Jan 4 at 14:03
















                  4














                  I think it's meant to be ambiguous between



                  only true if 0% ran
                  or
                  not 100% ran (i.e. true if 50% ran).



                  Edit:
                  I found the excerpt of the book in question - looks like I was right:




                  In addition, operators such as negation and tense are also scope sensitive. For example, the sentence Every boy didn't run is ambiguous between the reading in which some boys didn't run and some did, that is,
                  (NOT (EVERY bl: (BOY1 bl) (RUN1 bl)))
                  and the reading where no boys ran, that is,
                  (EVERY bl : (BOY1 bl) (NOT (RUN 1 bl))) These two readings are captured by the single logical form







                  share|improve this answer





















                  • 1





                    Ah, the OP has incorrectly interpreted the sentence. The book doesn't say the two options are "some boys didn't run" and "some did", rather it says the two options are "some boys didn't run and some did" and "no boys ran".

                    – AndyT
                    Jan 3 at 10:25











                  • @AndyT To be fair, the original author also wrote an incorrect interpretation. The sentence “Every boy didn’t run” can either mean "At least one boy didn't run" or "No boy ran". It doesn't tell anything about "kids who ran". So it's wrong to infer "Some did run" from the original sentence, whichever option is chosen.

                    – Eric Duminil
                    Jan 4 at 14:03














                  4












                  4








                  4







                  I think it's meant to be ambiguous between



                  only true if 0% ran
                  or
                  not 100% ran (i.e. true if 50% ran).



                  Edit:
                  I found the excerpt of the book in question - looks like I was right:




                  In addition, operators such as negation and tense are also scope sensitive. For example, the sentence Every boy didn't run is ambiguous between the reading in which some boys didn't run and some did, that is,
                  (NOT (EVERY bl: (BOY1 bl) (RUN1 bl)))
                  and the reading where no boys ran, that is,
                  (EVERY bl : (BOY1 bl) (NOT (RUN 1 bl))) These two readings are captured by the single logical form







                  share|improve this answer















                  I think it's meant to be ambiguous between



                  only true if 0% ran
                  or
                  not 100% ran (i.e. true if 50% ran).



                  Edit:
                  I found the excerpt of the book in question - looks like I was right:




                  In addition, operators such as negation and tense are also scope sensitive. For example, the sentence Every boy didn't run is ambiguous between the reading in which some boys didn't run and some did, that is,
                  (NOT (EVERY bl: (BOY1 bl) (RUN1 bl)))
                  and the reading where no boys ran, that is,
                  (EVERY bl : (BOY1 bl) (NOT (RUN 1 bl))) These two readings are captured by the single logical form








                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Jan 3 at 8:28

























                  answered Jan 3 at 8:20









                  pacifistpacifist

                  1414




                  1414








                  • 1





                    Ah, the OP has incorrectly interpreted the sentence. The book doesn't say the two options are "some boys didn't run" and "some did", rather it says the two options are "some boys didn't run and some did" and "no boys ran".

                    – AndyT
                    Jan 3 at 10:25











                  • @AndyT To be fair, the original author also wrote an incorrect interpretation. The sentence “Every boy didn’t run” can either mean "At least one boy didn't run" or "No boy ran". It doesn't tell anything about "kids who ran". So it's wrong to infer "Some did run" from the original sentence, whichever option is chosen.

                    – Eric Duminil
                    Jan 4 at 14:03














                  • 1





                    Ah, the OP has incorrectly interpreted the sentence. The book doesn't say the two options are "some boys didn't run" and "some did", rather it says the two options are "some boys didn't run and some did" and "no boys ran".

                    – AndyT
                    Jan 3 at 10:25











                  • @AndyT To be fair, the original author also wrote an incorrect interpretation. The sentence “Every boy didn’t run” can either mean "At least one boy didn't run" or "No boy ran". It doesn't tell anything about "kids who ran". So it's wrong to infer "Some did run" from the original sentence, whichever option is chosen.

                    – Eric Duminil
                    Jan 4 at 14:03








                  1




                  1





                  Ah, the OP has incorrectly interpreted the sentence. The book doesn't say the two options are "some boys didn't run" and "some did", rather it says the two options are "some boys didn't run and some did" and "no boys ran".

                  – AndyT
                  Jan 3 at 10:25





                  Ah, the OP has incorrectly interpreted the sentence. The book doesn't say the two options are "some boys didn't run" and "some did", rather it says the two options are "some boys didn't run and some did" and "no boys ran".

                  – AndyT
                  Jan 3 at 10:25













                  @AndyT To be fair, the original author also wrote an incorrect interpretation. The sentence “Every boy didn’t run” can either mean "At least one boy didn't run" or "No boy ran". It doesn't tell anything about "kids who ran". So it's wrong to infer "Some did run" from the original sentence, whichever option is chosen.

                  – Eric Duminil
                  Jan 4 at 14:03





                  @AndyT To be fair, the original author also wrote an incorrect interpretation. The sentence “Every boy didn’t run” can either mean "At least one boy didn't run" or "No boy ran". It doesn't tell anything about "kids who ran". So it's wrong to infer "Some did run" from the original sentence, whichever option is chosen.

                  – Eric Duminil
                  Jan 4 at 14:03











                  1














                  Of course "didn't" here is a contraction for "did not". It's ambiguous because it is not clear what "not" refers to.



                  If "not" refers to "run", then it's "(every boy) did (not run)". That is, every boy did this. What did they do? They did not run.



                  If "not" refers to "every", then it's "(not every boy) did (run)". That is, not every boy did this, so some of the boys did not do this. What is it that some of the boys did not do? Run.



                  I, and I think most English readers, would generally assume that the first meaning was meant.



                  A more clear way to say it if you meant that none of the boys ran would be to say, "None of the boys ran." If you meant to say that some ran and some didn't, you could say, "Not every boy ran".






                  share|improve this answer



















                  • 1





                    I really don't think most English speakers would interpret it like this—possibly most of the ones who have taken a course which deals in logic might.

                    – Peter Shor
                    Jan 3 at 17:49













                  • @PeterShor Maybe so, I was basically guessing about which way most readers would take it, and I tried to indicate that with the words "I think". Anyway, that's the point: it's ambiguous.

                    – Jay
                    Jan 3 at 20:17
















                  1














                  Of course "didn't" here is a contraction for "did not". It's ambiguous because it is not clear what "not" refers to.



                  If "not" refers to "run", then it's "(every boy) did (not run)". That is, every boy did this. What did they do? They did not run.



                  If "not" refers to "every", then it's "(not every boy) did (run)". That is, not every boy did this, so some of the boys did not do this. What is it that some of the boys did not do? Run.



                  I, and I think most English readers, would generally assume that the first meaning was meant.



                  A more clear way to say it if you meant that none of the boys ran would be to say, "None of the boys ran." If you meant to say that some ran and some didn't, you could say, "Not every boy ran".






                  share|improve this answer



















                  • 1





                    I really don't think most English speakers would interpret it like this—possibly most of the ones who have taken a course which deals in logic might.

                    – Peter Shor
                    Jan 3 at 17:49













                  • @PeterShor Maybe so, I was basically guessing about which way most readers would take it, and I tried to indicate that with the words "I think". Anyway, that's the point: it's ambiguous.

                    – Jay
                    Jan 3 at 20:17














                  1












                  1








                  1







                  Of course "didn't" here is a contraction for "did not". It's ambiguous because it is not clear what "not" refers to.



                  If "not" refers to "run", then it's "(every boy) did (not run)". That is, every boy did this. What did they do? They did not run.



                  If "not" refers to "every", then it's "(not every boy) did (run)". That is, not every boy did this, so some of the boys did not do this. What is it that some of the boys did not do? Run.



                  I, and I think most English readers, would generally assume that the first meaning was meant.



                  A more clear way to say it if you meant that none of the boys ran would be to say, "None of the boys ran." If you meant to say that some ran and some didn't, you could say, "Not every boy ran".






                  share|improve this answer













                  Of course "didn't" here is a contraction for "did not". It's ambiguous because it is not clear what "not" refers to.



                  If "not" refers to "run", then it's "(every boy) did (not run)". That is, every boy did this. What did they do? They did not run.



                  If "not" refers to "every", then it's "(not every boy) did (run)". That is, not every boy did this, so some of the boys did not do this. What is it that some of the boys did not do? Run.



                  I, and I think most English readers, would generally assume that the first meaning was meant.



                  A more clear way to say it if you meant that none of the boys ran would be to say, "None of the boys ran." If you meant to say that some ran and some didn't, you could say, "Not every boy ran".







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 3 at 17:42









                  JayJay

                  31.5k34691




                  31.5k34691








                  • 1





                    I really don't think most English speakers would interpret it like this—possibly most of the ones who have taken a course which deals in logic might.

                    – Peter Shor
                    Jan 3 at 17:49













                  • @PeterShor Maybe so, I was basically guessing about which way most readers would take it, and I tried to indicate that with the words "I think". Anyway, that's the point: it's ambiguous.

                    – Jay
                    Jan 3 at 20:17














                  • 1





                    I really don't think most English speakers would interpret it like this—possibly most of the ones who have taken a course which deals in logic might.

                    – Peter Shor
                    Jan 3 at 17:49













                  • @PeterShor Maybe so, I was basically guessing about which way most readers would take it, and I tried to indicate that with the words "I think". Anyway, that's the point: it's ambiguous.

                    – Jay
                    Jan 3 at 20:17








                  1




                  1





                  I really don't think most English speakers would interpret it like this—possibly most of the ones who have taken a course which deals in logic might.

                  – Peter Shor
                  Jan 3 at 17:49







                  I really don't think most English speakers would interpret it like this—possibly most of the ones who have taken a course which deals in logic might.

                  – Peter Shor
                  Jan 3 at 17:49















                  @PeterShor Maybe so, I was basically guessing about which way most readers would take it, and I tried to indicate that with the words "I think". Anyway, that's the point: it's ambiguous.

                  – Jay
                  Jan 3 at 20:17





                  @PeterShor Maybe so, I was basically guessing about which way most readers would take it, and I tried to indicate that with the words "I think". Anyway, that's the point: it's ambiguous.

                  – Jay
                  Jan 3 at 20:17











                  1














                  Consider the following dialog where two people describe an incident:



                  "There was panic. Every boy ran for cover."



                  "Every boy didn't run."



                  It might be more "formally correct" if the second speaker had said "Not every boy ran," but the sentence he actually used emphasised the difference between the two speakers' descriptions - the second speaker is emphasising the difference in behaviour between running and not running, not the the number of boys who didn't run.



                  On the other hand, if you consider the sentence as a logical proposition and ignore the context in which it was spoken or written, "Every boy didn't run" is logically identical to "No boy ran".






                  share|improve this answer




























                    1














                    Consider the following dialog where two people describe an incident:



                    "There was panic. Every boy ran for cover."



                    "Every boy didn't run."



                    It might be more "formally correct" if the second speaker had said "Not every boy ran," but the sentence he actually used emphasised the difference between the two speakers' descriptions - the second speaker is emphasising the difference in behaviour between running and not running, not the the number of boys who didn't run.



                    On the other hand, if you consider the sentence as a logical proposition and ignore the context in which it was spoken or written, "Every boy didn't run" is logically identical to "No boy ran".






                    share|improve this answer


























                      1












                      1








                      1







                      Consider the following dialog where two people describe an incident:



                      "There was panic. Every boy ran for cover."



                      "Every boy didn't run."



                      It might be more "formally correct" if the second speaker had said "Not every boy ran," but the sentence he actually used emphasised the difference between the two speakers' descriptions - the second speaker is emphasising the difference in behaviour between running and not running, not the the number of boys who didn't run.



                      On the other hand, if you consider the sentence as a logical proposition and ignore the context in which it was spoken or written, "Every boy didn't run" is logically identical to "No boy ran".






                      share|improve this answer













                      Consider the following dialog where two people describe an incident:



                      "There was panic. Every boy ran for cover."



                      "Every boy didn't run."



                      It might be more "formally correct" if the second speaker had said "Not every boy ran," but the sentence he actually used emphasised the difference between the two speakers' descriptions - the second speaker is emphasising the difference in behaviour between running and not running, not the the number of boys who didn't run.



                      On the other hand, if you consider the sentence as a logical proposition and ignore the context in which it was spoken or written, "Every boy didn't run" is logically identical to "No boy ran".







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Jan 4 at 0:39









                      alephzeroalephzero

                      3,43411116




                      3,43411116























                          1















                          “Every boy didn’t run”




                          is just not how you say anything. It's not grammatical. So it actually doesn't mean anything at all.



                          But an English speaker wants to squeeze some meaning out of it. What is called ambiguity is really the different ways one imagines the speaker intended but fouled up.



                          English (or human language) isn't formal logic, so the words don't apply necessarily in a strict order. So forcing one meaning on the phrase would be translated back into words as




                          Not every boy ran (there are some boys who did not run but some probably did, otherwise you would say 'no boy ran'),




                          or




                          No boy ran (For every boy, it is not the case that the boy ran)




                          as though 'every boy' is like a logical universal quantifier over all boys and the predicate says 'the boy did not run'.



                          It is problematic to say the sentence is ambiguous because it is not a pattern interpretable directly in English. So you have to guess what is meant, and in those collection of words, there are pretty much only two directions to go.






                          share|improve this answer



















                          • 3





                            While it is easy to agree that 'every boy didn't run' is a formulation that it would inadvisable to use, is it really ungrammatical? Which rule of grammar is violated by it?

                            – jsw29
                            Jan 4 at 1:40
















                          1















                          “Every boy didn’t run”




                          is just not how you say anything. It's not grammatical. So it actually doesn't mean anything at all.



                          But an English speaker wants to squeeze some meaning out of it. What is called ambiguity is really the different ways one imagines the speaker intended but fouled up.



                          English (or human language) isn't formal logic, so the words don't apply necessarily in a strict order. So forcing one meaning on the phrase would be translated back into words as




                          Not every boy ran (there are some boys who did not run but some probably did, otherwise you would say 'no boy ran'),




                          or




                          No boy ran (For every boy, it is not the case that the boy ran)




                          as though 'every boy' is like a logical universal quantifier over all boys and the predicate says 'the boy did not run'.



                          It is problematic to say the sentence is ambiguous because it is not a pattern interpretable directly in English. So you have to guess what is meant, and in those collection of words, there are pretty much only two directions to go.






                          share|improve this answer



















                          • 3





                            While it is easy to agree that 'every boy didn't run' is a formulation that it would inadvisable to use, is it really ungrammatical? Which rule of grammar is violated by it?

                            – jsw29
                            Jan 4 at 1:40














                          1












                          1








                          1








                          “Every boy didn’t run”




                          is just not how you say anything. It's not grammatical. So it actually doesn't mean anything at all.



                          But an English speaker wants to squeeze some meaning out of it. What is called ambiguity is really the different ways one imagines the speaker intended but fouled up.



                          English (or human language) isn't formal logic, so the words don't apply necessarily in a strict order. So forcing one meaning on the phrase would be translated back into words as




                          Not every boy ran (there are some boys who did not run but some probably did, otherwise you would say 'no boy ran'),




                          or




                          No boy ran (For every boy, it is not the case that the boy ran)




                          as though 'every boy' is like a logical universal quantifier over all boys and the predicate says 'the boy did not run'.



                          It is problematic to say the sentence is ambiguous because it is not a pattern interpretable directly in English. So you have to guess what is meant, and in those collection of words, there are pretty much only two directions to go.






                          share|improve this answer














                          “Every boy didn’t run”




                          is just not how you say anything. It's not grammatical. So it actually doesn't mean anything at all.



                          But an English speaker wants to squeeze some meaning out of it. What is called ambiguity is really the different ways one imagines the speaker intended but fouled up.



                          English (or human language) isn't formal logic, so the words don't apply necessarily in a strict order. So forcing one meaning on the phrase would be translated back into words as




                          Not every boy ran (there are some boys who did not run but some probably did, otherwise you would say 'no boy ran'),




                          or




                          No boy ran (For every boy, it is not the case that the boy ran)




                          as though 'every boy' is like a logical universal quantifier over all boys and the predicate says 'the boy did not run'.



                          It is problematic to say the sentence is ambiguous because it is not a pattern interpretable directly in English. So you have to guess what is meant, and in those collection of words, there are pretty much only two directions to go.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered Jan 4 at 1:12









                          MitchMitch

                          52.2k15105218




                          52.2k15105218








                          • 3





                            While it is easy to agree that 'every boy didn't run' is a formulation that it would inadvisable to use, is it really ungrammatical? Which rule of grammar is violated by it?

                            – jsw29
                            Jan 4 at 1:40














                          • 3





                            While it is easy to agree that 'every boy didn't run' is a formulation that it would inadvisable to use, is it really ungrammatical? Which rule of grammar is violated by it?

                            – jsw29
                            Jan 4 at 1:40








                          3




                          3





                          While it is easy to agree that 'every boy didn't run' is a formulation that it would inadvisable to use, is it really ungrammatical? Which rule of grammar is violated by it?

                          – jsw29
                          Jan 4 at 1:40





                          While it is easy to agree that 'every boy didn't run' is a formulation that it would inadvisable to use, is it really ungrammatical? Which rule of grammar is violated by it?

                          – jsw29
                          Jan 4 at 1:40











                          0














                          The way I understand it is that:




                          Every boy didn't run




                          could be read as the negation of:




                          Every boy did run




                          thus, the negated sentence is equivalent to:




                          It is not true that every boy did run




                          and the above statement is already true if even a single boy failed to run (even if all the other boys succesfully escaped).






                          share|improve this answer




























                            0














                            The way I understand it is that:




                            Every boy didn't run




                            could be read as the negation of:




                            Every boy did run




                            thus, the negated sentence is equivalent to:




                            It is not true that every boy did run




                            and the above statement is already true if even a single boy failed to run (even if all the other boys succesfully escaped).






                            share|improve this answer


























                              0












                              0








                              0







                              The way I understand it is that:




                              Every boy didn't run




                              could be read as the negation of:




                              Every boy did run




                              thus, the negated sentence is equivalent to:




                              It is not true that every boy did run




                              and the above statement is already true if even a single boy failed to run (even if all the other boys succesfully escaped).






                              share|improve this answer













                              The way I understand it is that:




                              Every boy didn't run




                              could be read as the negation of:




                              Every boy did run




                              thus, the negated sentence is equivalent to:




                              It is not true that every boy did run




                              and the above statement is already true if even a single boy failed to run (even if all the other boys succesfully escaped).







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Jan 4 at 14:00









                              crizziscrizzis

                              1011




                              1011























                                  0














                                  But it may happen with “all” adjectives quoting totatility or infinite. The negative form shouldn’t exactly mean the negation of its affirmative sentence:
                                  “All the boys run” vs “all the boys didn’t run”;
                                  “Zero boys run” vs “zero boys didn’t run”;
                                  “Infinite number of stars covered the sky” vs “infinite number of stars didn’t cover the sky “
                                  “Millions of drops fell down” vs “millions of drops didn’t fall down”,
                                  Etc...



                                  Isn’t there ambiguity in all of these negative forms? There shouldn’t be any problem to interpret when speaking, but context or perifrasis to avoid confusion is needed when writing. That is happening with Spanish and in all Latin languages too, because negative form doesn’t negate the adjective, only the verb is negated. Anyway, I agree that the use of those negative forms is weird, not only in English. Actually, if we want to negate the adjective we have to say the adverb “not” before the adjective itself: “Not every/all/infinite, etc.”






                                  share|improve this answer






























                                    0














                                    But it may happen with “all” adjectives quoting totatility or infinite. The negative form shouldn’t exactly mean the negation of its affirmative sentence:
                                    “All the boys run” vs “all the boys didn’t run”;
                                    “Zero boys run” vs “zero boys didn’t run”;
                                    “Infinite number of stars covered the sky” vs “infinite number of stars didn’t cover the sky “
                                    “Millions of drops fell down” vs “millions of drops didn’t fall down”,
                                    Etc...



                                    Isn’t there ambiguity in all of these negative forms? There shouldn’t be any problem to interpret when speaking, but context or perifrasis to avoid confusion is needed when writing. That is happening with Spanish and in all Latin languages too, because negative form doesn’t negate the adjective, only the verb is negated. Anyway, I agree that the use of those negative forms is weird, not only in English. Actually, if we want to negate the adjective we have to say the adverb “not” before the adjective itself: “Not every/all/infinite, etc.”






                                    share|improve this answer




























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      But it may happen with “all” adjectives quoting totatility or infinite. The negative form shouldn’t exactly mean the negation of its affirmative sentence:
                                      “All the boys run” vs “all the boys didn’t run”;
                                      “Zero boys run” vs “zero boys didn’t run”;
                                      “Infinite number of stars covered the sky” vs “infinite number of stars didn’t cover the sky “
                                      “Millions of drops fell down” vs “millions of drops didn’t fall down”,
                                      Etc...



                                      Isn’t there ambiguity in all of these negative forms? There shouldn’t be any problem to interpret when speaking, but context or perifrasis to avoid confusion is needed when writing. That is happening with Spanish and in all Latin languages too, because negative form doesn’t negate the adjective, only the verb is negated. Anyway, I agree that the use of those negative forms is weird, not only in English. Actually, if we want to negate the adjective we have to say the adverb “not” before the adjective itself: “Not every/all/infinite, etc.”






                                      share|improve this answer















                                      But it may happen with “all” adjectives quoting totatility or infinite. The negative form shouldn’t exactly mean the negation of its affirmative sentence:
                                      “All the boys run” vs “all the boys didn’t run”;
                                      “Zero boys run” vs “zero boys didn’t run”;
                                      “Infinite number of stars covered the sky” vs “infinite number of stars didn’t cover the sky “
                                      “Millions of drops fell down” vs “millions of drops didn’t fall down”,
                                      Etc...



                                      Isn’t there ambiguity in all of these negative forms? There shouldn’t be any problem to interpret when speaking, but context or perifrasis to avoid confusion is needed when writing. That is happening with Spanish and in all Latin languages too, because negative form doesn’t negate the adjective, only the verb is negated. Anyway, I agree that the use of those negative forms is weird, not only in English. Actually, if we want to negate the adjective we have to say the adverb “not” before the adjective itself: “Not every/all/infinite, etc.”







                                      share|improve this answer














                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited Jan 9 at 15:04

























                                      answered Jan 9 at 14:47









                                      Goggle Gobbled TongueGoggle Gobbled Tongue

                                      516




                                      516






























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded




















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid …



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479640%2funderstanding-the-purported-ambiguity-in-every-boy-didn-t-run%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          -

                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Bressuire

                                          Image
                                          .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
                                          Read more

                                          Cabo Verde

                                          Image
                                            Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º)
                                          Read more

                                          Gyllenstierna

                                          Image
                                          .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
                                          Read more