Every widget isn’t a gadget (ambiguous) parses for me as “It is not true that every widget IS a gadget” or “Not every widget is (necessarily) a gadget” or more formally “Some widgets are not gadgets”.
It means “no widgets are gadgets.”
However, that syntax is often misused, and would mean “not every widget is a gadget.” I think that’s what most people would mean when they say it.
No widgets are gadgets
While it could literally be interpreted as “No widgets are gadgets”, it is such terrible phrasing that I would assume that they really meant “Not every widget is a gadget” and simply messed up the syntax.
I parse it as “widget and gadget are both really funny words when you’ve read them several dozen times in a row.”
Or: It’s ambiguous. I wouldn’t be able to draw any conclusions from that statement, and I would ask for clarification.
That there is some number of widgits between “one” and “all of them” which are not gadgets. Inclusive.
Regards,
Shodan
I would normally read it to mean “No widget is a gadget”, i.e. “Anything that is a widget cannot be a gadget”.
I pointed out SHakespeare to show that a master of the language uses it to mean “not all members of X are also Y.” He used it to that meaning, and it’s one of Shakespeare’s phrases that’s become a cliche.
I submit that a significant number (if not a majority) of folks who use this construction mean what Shakespeare meant, and that a significant number (if not a majority) of listeners parse it as such. (A thread in which folks are asked to parse a statement is a self-selecting sample, and not representative). It’s meaningless to say folks are misusing the syntax, given that most speakers communicate this idea successfully to most audiences.
I’d be interested to see a boolean search for the phrase, see what’s generally meant by it. DOes anyone have that kind of google-fu?
Edit: my initial google searches bring up a couple more counterexamples. If I say, “All is not lost,” surely I mean that some is lost, but some isn’t. That phrase isn’t equivalent to “None is lost.” And if I say, “All is not well,” I’m similarly saying that something is not well, not saying that nothing is well. If I say, “All hope is not lost,” I’m not saying that all hope is found. And so on.
Daniel
Think of a different way to parse it strictly.
There is a set called All Widgets. It is incorrect to say that this set is identical to the set Gadgets.
There is a group called All that Glitters. It is incorrect to say that this group is identical to the group Gold.
I believe that in common parlance, this is how most folks parse the construction. So far, my Googling is failing to turn up an example in which the phrase is intended the way you suggest.
Okay, one more post: I just improved my Google-fu. Some example returns from the search:
All Cultures Are Not Equal. Does this preclude the possibility of two equal cultures?
All Loans Are Not Created Equal. WOuld the author reject the idea that two particular loans are created equal?
All Mergers Are Not ALike. Could any mergers be alike?
All Muslims Are Not Terrorists. Does Mohammad Atta disprove this thesis?
And so on. Again, I can’t find any common usages that match the idea that the phrasing means “No X are Y.”
edit: just found one. “All fees are not refundable.” Note that this is more of a legalistic document. Maybe it’s more appropriate there.
Daniel
Some widgets are not gadgets.
This thread makes my brain hurt.
Yup. You win.
For those that say it means that No Widgets are Gadgets, that there are no Ford trucks, etc: Why do you parse “every” as “each individual”? It clearly means “the whole set”.
“Well, students, is everyone feeling well today?”
“No”
“No what?”
“Everyone is not feeling healthy today. The statement ‘Everyone is feeling healthy today’ is false.”
“Mechanic, are all my car problems fixed?”
“No. All your car problems are not fixed.”
“You mean you didn’t get started at all yet?”
“Of course I don’t mean that. That would be stupid. I’m halfway done.”
Bessie is a cow. Carl is a cow.
All cows are not named Carl.
True or false?
Every truck is a Ford.
Every truck is not a Ford.
These are exact opposite statements. Are you, Mangetout, claiming both to be false? But to answer your question, I’d assume, when you came back from the salesman, that you’d tell me something about every widget, not each widget.
This one, although I might clarify: There may be no widgets which are gadgets, or it may be that all widgets except one are gadgets, or there may be no gadgets and only widgets, or no widgets and only gadgets, or there may be neither, but we can definitely state is that if at least one widget exists it is is not a gadget, at least part of the time.
I’m confused. These can only be opposite statements if the second one does mean “No truck is a Ford,” which you seem to be arguing against.
I find “All X is not Y” to be archaic when used in the way you and LHoD say, although I suspect I’ll lose going up against LHoD. I find that when that meaning is intended, a modern speaker will use the much less ambiguous “Not all X is Y.”
Bosstone is a male.
Bosstone is not a male.
These are opposite statements.
ChessicSense is right.
Chessic Sense is not right.
These are opposite statements.
Every truck is a Ford
Every truck is not a Ford
These are opposite statements.
How bout if we put parentheses around it:
(Every truck) is a Ford.
(Every truck) is not a Ford.
You’re just providing examples now, not arguments. Further, all of those examples support the “No X is Y” interpretation, not the “Not all X is Y” interpretation. I thought you were arguing for the latter. Am I wrong?
It’s sloppy and ambiguous.
The most direct, literal meaning is “Everything that is a widget is not a gadget, so if something is a widget, it cannot be a gadget.”
However, very often people say things like this when what they mean is “Not every widget is a gadget”—that is, there are some widgets that are not gadgets. If that’s what they mean, I think they really ought to say it that way; but I’m aware that [del]everybody doesn’t[/del] not everybody does.
At least one truck is a Ford.
At least one truck is not a Ford.
These are not opposite statements.
The object is flammable
The object is inflammable
A man is killed in the Ookestan War every 2 minutes 17 seconds.
A man is not killed in the Ookestan War every 2 minutes 17 seconds.
It is a matter of utmost moral and social importance that a murderer in this town should be found.
It is a matter of utmost moral and social importance that a murderer in this town should not be found.
I understand the desire for an environment in which expressions are tightly controlled so as to convey information in an explicit and nonambiguous manner.
General-purpose language is not that environment.
- The first set are not opposites, they’re equivalent.
- I don’t see your point. The other statements are in agreement with me. They’re opposites. Well, the last one would be if the negative verb wasn’t in the subjunctive clause and instead read “It isn’t a matter of…”
- You’re preaching to the choir here. I’m on the “It means exactly what people think it means. Both generally and technically.” side of this.