# "All x are not y" - what does this mean to you?? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 14, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066 "2010-04-14T14:43:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/1 "2010-04-14T14:43:13Z")
In [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12335953&postcount=406) **Fuzzy Wombats** is talking about whether a group of Iraqis are armed or not. The phrase used is “_Now, from my viewing of that video, I can clearly see weapons. All of them are not armed, but there are a few._” That phrase “_All of them are not armed_” seems to mean the exact opposite to what is meant? As a Brit I take “_All of them are not armed_” to mean “_None of them is armed_”, which doesn’t appear to be the intention behind it. In fact it’s the complete opposite - i.e. some of them are indeed armed. Likewise I’ve also seen a similar phrase used in defence of the catholic clergy: “_All priests are not abusers_”, which surely means “_There are zero priests who are abusers_” which is not the intention either. In each case I would have used “_Not all of them are armed_”, and “_Not all priests are abusers_”. So is this just a case of sloppy writing by **Fuzzy Wombats** , or have I got my grammar confused? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/2 "2010-04-14T14:46:43Z")
Thank you-- I’d been hearing that syntax in TV commercials for ages (“All fluoride toothpastes are not [alike](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2603/whats-the-best-toothpaste)!”) and it drives me crazy. Too bad they don’t teach basic logic until the college level, and even then I doubt more than a few people even study it a little bit, or we wouldn’t have this syntactical embarrassment. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/3 "2010-04-14T14:51:27Z")
You’re right, of course, and I’ve been hearing it too . . . along with the use of “less” when they mean “fewer.” You’d think that professional journalists would have a grasp of the English language. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/4 "2010-04-14T14:58:13Z")
Sloppy writing. I’ve seen similar variances in meaning and resultant confusion with respect to the particular placement of “only,” as well. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/5 "2010-04-14T14:58:31Z")
Is this an American thing (like “_I could care less_”), or is it standard english outside the UK? ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/6 "2010-04-14T15:01:22Z")
It’s got nothing to do with logic (and translating English into a formal language, or back again, is fraught with all sorts of difficulties). It’s just proof that the semantics of English aren’t really compositional, and the meaning of one sentence can change depending on its context. Taken in context, it’s easy to see what the sentence means. Even the OP had to focus on a fragment of a sentence to get a contradiction, the second half of the sentence clears up the meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/7 "2010-04-14T15:03:24Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > It’s got nothing to do with logic (and translating English into a formal language, or back again, is fraught with all sorts of difficulties). It’s just proof that the semantics of English aren’t really compositional, and the meaning of one sentence can change depending on its context. Taken in context, it’s easy to see what the sentence means. I agree that from context it’s possible to work it out, but that’s making the reader work harder than required, hence my feeling that’s it’s lazy writing. ---
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/8 "2010-04-14T15:33:50Z")
My first instinct was to parse it as {If X, then ~Y}. Of course, I’ve been teaching formal logic to kiddos lately and the text we use is quite careful to differentiate “All X are not Y” from “Not all X are Y \<=\> Some X are not Y”. ---
**Author:** ![wayward](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a87d85/32.png) [@wayward](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wayward)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/9 "2010-04-14T15:36:05Z")
Those sentences don’t sound right to me either, but at least they have a respectable precedent in “All that glitters is not gold”. What’s really been grating me recently is the use of “anymore” to mean “these days”. I just always have to re-read the sentence to understand it. I seem to almost exclusively see it used here, but that’s probably just because it’s the main place I see informal US English. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/10 "2010-04-14T15:40:54Z")
**wayward** , I think what’s been cropping up all over the place is a misspelling: people apparently don’t know the difference between “anymore” and “any more”. As for the sentence in the OP, I do tend to parse it as the speakers intended. I see “all bananas are fruits, but not all fruits are bananas” and “all bananas are fruits, but all fruits are not bananas” as equivalent, although I’d be more likely to use the first construction. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/11 "2010-04-14T15:55:27Z")
I understood it right off the bat. Not from any sort of logic, but just because I’ve seen that construction so often that I barely notice it any more. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/12 "2010-04-14T15:59:36Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > **wayward** , I think what’s been cropping up all over the place is a misspelling: people apparently don’t know the difference between “anymore” and “any more”. No, it’s a [regionalism](http://www4.uwm.edu/FLL/linguistics/dialect/staticmaps/q_54.html) and “supposed to” be written that way. We have several dopers here from the area of the US that uses it. Drives me batty as well, but not as much as [object] needs [past tense verb]. I’m wondering now if leaving out the word “not” in phrases the OP mentioned is a regionalism too. I haven’t heard anyone phrase things like that outside a logic class, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/13 "2010-04-14T16:02:38Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > You’re right, of course, and I’ve been hearing it too . . . along with the use of “less” when they mean “fewer.” You’d think that professional journalists would have a grasp of the English language. We’ve covered this. “Less” is perfectly fine when used to mean “lower quantity of”, according to any online dictionary that I’ve looked at. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/14 "2010-04-14T16:04:50Z")
Funny, when I saw the thread title “All x are not y” I thought it meant that some y that are x, but not all of them. When I read the sentence in question, half way through I interpreted it to mean they’re all unarmed, but upon reading the whole thing, I see he meant some are. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/15 "2010-04-14T16:53:04Z")
When I read, “All X are not Y,” I think it _should_ mean “Every single X is not Y.” “There is no X which is Y.” “The set of X is disjoint from the set of Y.” However, I am aware that many people use this construction to mean “Not all X are Y.” So, in practice I treat the phrase as ambiguous and hope I can figure out from the context which they mean. ---
**Author:** ![runcible\_spoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc29f/32.png) [@runcible\_spoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runcible_spoon)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/16 "2010-04-14T18:02:08Z")
Maybe it’s regional, but I’ve never encountered anyone using it to mean ‘no x are y’. In my experience, it’s strictly ‘not all x are y’, so that’s immediately how I interpret it. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/17 "2010-04-14T19:20:41Z")
> [@runcible\_spoon](#): > > Maybe it’s regional, but I’ve never encountered anyone using it to mean ‘no x are y’. But that’s what it “should” mean. A statement that begins “All X are…” logically ought to say something about **all X**. “All of them have beards” would be a statement about all of them; analogously, “All of them are not armed” ought to be a statement about all of them. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/18 "2010-04-14T19:24:04Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > It’s got nothing to do with logic (and translating English into a formal language, or back again, is fraught with all sorts of difficulties). It’s just proof that the semantics of English aren’t really compositional, and the meaning of one sentence can change depending on its context. Taken in context, it’s easy to see what the sentence means. Even the OP had to focus on a fragment of a sentence to get a contradiction, the second half of the sentence clears up the meaning. Man, you said everything I was going to say. Now what am I going to do?.. (That having been said, I often mentally stumble when confronted with this phrasing as well. C’est la vie.) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/19 "2010-04-14T20:16:27Z")
> [@Wallenstein](#): > > Is this an American thing ..? I started a thread asking this a while back and I think it was resolved that it’s an English thing that has fallen more quickly out of common use in the UK than in the US. Consider: 'All that glisters is not gold (Shakespeare) and ‘All is not lost’ (Milton) ETA: Outside of well-established examples such as the above, I often have problems parsing it properly. ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066/20 "2010-04-14T20:25:57Z")
> [@Wallenstein](#): > > I agree that from context it’s possible to work it out, but that’s making the reader work harder than required, hence my feeling that’s it’s lazy writing. I disagree. If you want to say that none of them are armed (or, if you insist, _is_ armed), the usual way to say it is just that, “none of them is/are armed”. Nobody would say “all of them are not armed” to convey that idea, regardless of logic, so I don’t think it does need context to clarify it. It just needs familiarity with common usage. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-x-are-not-y-what-does-this-mean-to-you/536066.md?page=2)