Every widget isn’t a gadget.
Never mind the definition of the terms, what is this statement telling you about the relationship, if any, between widgets and gadgets?
Answers in a spoiler box please, at least to begin with.
I personally perceive it to mean:
All widgets are not gadgets
The way I parse it, your spoiler statement is every bit as ambiguous as your initial statement.
fair enough, allow me to rephrase:
I perceive it to mean:
There are no widgets that are gadgets
In conversation, I would interpret it
NOT ALL widgets ARE gadgets
In a document, I insist it be re-written for clarity.
I agree with j666. On both counts.
I agree with j666 as well for the conversational meaning that I would take from it.
I would interpret it in that context to mean that only a subset of all widgets are also gadgets, or in a Venn diagram, that there is some overlapping between the category of widgets and the category of gadgets, but it is not a ccmplete overlap.
For me, lacking context, it’s unambiguouslyThere is no widget that is a gadget.It is semantically different fromNot every widget is a gadget.I would probably parse it the second way depending on context, but it would take me a few seconds to understand.
I disagree here with you on this one.
There are no widgets that are gadgets would be my interpretation if the line was “no Every widget is a gadget.” The original term does not necessitate mutual exclusiveness.
To me, “Every widget isn’t a gadget.” means that while some widgets are gadgets, it is not a requirement that all widgets are gadgets. It would be the same as someone saying “every truck ins’t a ford” It doesn’t mean that there are no ford trucks.
I do think the phrasing is ambiguous, but I think no absolute should be drawn without an absolute, unambiguous anwer.
I guess we can drop the spoiler boxes now that we’ve had different anwers.
I get that it means different things to different people, it’s just that the order of words makes it quite unambiguous to me.
The straightforward (well, for me) interpretation of the statement can be understood one word at a time, incrementally. The other interpretation can only be understood after hearing the whole thing (if this doesn’t make sense, imagine someone saying “Every widget…”, then being interrupted by the doorbell - while they’re off talking to the double glazing salesman, what, other than the entire set of widgets, could you imagine they were starting to speak about?
… and if someone said ‘every truck isn’t a Ford’, I would interpret it as meaning that there are no Ford trucks - that is, I would consider their statement factually incorrect.
That’s actually the point that made me start this thread - in some other discussion, someone said “every isn’t a [y]” and I was just about to interject with “come now - surely some s are [y]s”
All that glitters is not gold, then, must mean that gold doesn’t glitter. Huh.
Daniel
If it’s a widget, it’s not a gadget.
You got me there - except that it’s a conspicuously poetic form, to my eye - not one I think I would construct for myself.
I lean toward saying that some widget could be gadgets, unless it the writer were Japanese and then I’d assume they were translating from kaku which assumes each one.
I used to run into ambiguous statements frequently when working in the translation business, and would have the translators translate both ways and ask for clarification.
Short of I’d do that in this case.
Some widgets are gadgets, but you shouldn’t assume they all are.
It doesn’t make sense to say “Every X” when we mean “No X are.”
Taken literally, it means “Nothing is both a widget and a gadget.” But taken colloquially, it probably means “Not every widget is a gadget.”
I’d take it to mean something along the lines of either:
Widgets
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Gadgets
- - - - - - - - - -+-+-+-+ + + + + + + +
- - - - - - - - - -+-+-+-+ + + + + + + +
- - - - - - - - - -+-+-+-+ + + + + + + +
- - - - - - - - - -+-+-+-+ + + + + + + +
- - - - - - - - - -+-+-+-+ + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
Or:
Widgets
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -+-+-+-+-+-+- -
- - - - - -+-+-+-+-+-+- -
- - - - - -+-+-+-+-+-+- - <-- (Gadgets)
- - - - - -+-+-+-+-+-+- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I.e. the set Widgets is not bounded by set Gadgets but Widgets and Gadgets do overlap.
For mutual exclusivity I would say, “No widget is a gadget.”
That line has always bugged me for that exact reason. My internal grammar machine insists on parsing that as “Nothing glittery is gold,” and I have to consciously correct it to reach comprehension.
I think it means:
There exists at least one widget which is not a gadget
There is at least one widget that is not a gadget.