Language thing

[aesmael]

Originally published at a denizen's entertainment. You can comment here or there.

The construction "All X aren't Y" always throws me off. When I encounter it I parse it initially as "No X are Y" although I am fairly sure what people mean (nearly?) every time is "Not all X are Y", often with a particular emphasis that people should not mistakenly believe "All X are Y".

Comments

[infinitely-late.livejournal.com]

The phrasing is definitely misleading; it seems to imply that 'All X' are 'not Y', which would mean that no X are Y. I agree, if they want it to make sense, the 'not' should be at the front.

And now I'm having flashbacks to the first-year philosophy subjects I took in uni. I always found Logic both eminently sensible and yet strangely bewildering, like a thing which only has shape if you don't look at it directly.

[pazi-ashfeather.livejournal.com]

"Not all X are Y" would definitely be clearer.

[mantic-angel.livejournal.com]

Same here :)

[coniferous_you]

In what context was this phrase used? I've never heard it before, and find it hard to imagine where it would be used. The best hypothetical example I could conjure was "all dogs aren't pomeranians." And, clearly, that one sounded like a bag of apples falling down a staircase.