scope of negation

[Joern Matthias]

1a) It is not true that anyone has asked me for money.

1b) It is not true that someone has asked me for money.

I know the first sentence implies that nobody has asked me for money because of the negative sense in the main clause governing the rest of the sentence. Can the same
mechanism be used in sentence 1b) implying that someone specific (in my mind) has not asked me for money?

What about these two sentences?

2a) I am not angry that anyone has asked me for money.

2b) I am not angry that someone has asked me for money.

Could sentence 2a) mean that nobody asked me for money?

How could the listener or reader understand sentence 2b)? Can this sentence only
convey the meaning that someone has really asked me for money or could it
also mean that someone specific (in my mind) has not asked me for money?

Greetings from Bavaria

Joern

[susiedq]

In your sample sentences, anyone = someone.

[Afit]

susiedq, do you mean that this sentence is acceptable to you:

I am not angry that anyone has asked me for money.

and that it is equivalent in meaning to

I am not angry that someone has asked me for money.

?

[susiedq]

In context, it is certainly acceptable.

Situation:

Mary is asked by several people to borrow money. She gets angry. Someone asks her why she is so upset. She replies, "I am not angry that anyone has asked me for money. I am angry because they all think I am rich."

She was speaking of people in general: anyone.

[Afit]

In context, it is certainly acceptable.

Situation:

Mary is asked by several people to borrow money. She gets angry. Someone asks her why she is so upset. She replies, "I am not angry that anyone has asked me for money. I am angry because they all think I am rich."

She was speaking of people in general: anyone.

Thanks. I have to gnaw at it.

edit: w