There’s this thing I hear from American TV often whereby someone says, when they mean that there is a variety within a group, something like “all cars are not blue”.
By context it’s easy enough to see that what is meant is “some cars are blue, and some are not”
But a British person would see that as “there are no blue cars within this set of cars”, and would rather say “not all cars are blue”, leaving the implication that some cars are for the listener to fill in. At least in my experience.
Is it only me that sees this difference, and where does it come from ?
USA “all cars are not blue” = some cars are not blue
UK “all cars are not blue” = there are no blue cars
At this point, the difference you perceive seems to be a personal opinion rather than based on actual evidence. Until it’s been established that the difference is real, IMHO is more appropriate.
The first example that comes to mind is “All that is gold does not glitter” written by the english writer J.R.R Tolkien and unless I misunderstand is intended to mean “not all gold glitters” and not “gold never glitters”.
“Same” is a different case than “blue.” Individual things are blue. Collections are the same. It only takes one thing in the group to be different in order for the collection to be called “not the same.” “All lactase preparations” circumscribes the group being discussed. “Not the same” describes how they are not uniform. Thus, if even one is different, “all lactase preparations are not the same.”
Would you have your same interpretation if I said “All lactase preparations are not uniform” or “all…are not interchangeable”?
Even better. But the only reason I notice it at all is that it stands out so much from my daily experience, and I have to figure it out for a little moment when I do, which is why I’m pretty sure there’s a national difference, generally speaking.
All Americans don’t put the all before the not.
Not all Americans put the all before the not.
OK I’ll rephrase that, let’s wait for another Brit, in addition to myself, to confirm. Let’s also stipulate that said Brit is sound in mind and body, and has broad experience of conversational and electronically mediated language both native and originating in the USA.
An even simpler example of ambiguity is the imperative No smoking allowed.
Literally it should mean “you are permitted to not smoke” which is of course not the intended meaning.
This is one case where the often-ambiguous Thai language gives better results; “Smoke not may” and “Not smoke may” are distinct sentences with very different meanings. (Another valid sentence is “Not smoke not may” meaning that smoking is required!)
