1. Every boy does not like dancing.
2. Not every boy likes dancing.
SO, is 1 same as 2 in meaning?
To me, the proverbial expression is "All that glitters is not gold." That is, "Just because it glitters doesn't mean it's gold."I have read the whole thread, and have many of the same feelings as the other teachers, but I still feel like saying yes, they are both correct, and yes, they have the same meaning.
It's like the proverbial expression, "All that is gold does not glitter."
It's unnatural to use propositional logic to interpret the meaning in this way: all gold fails to glitter.
The only rhetorically natural, though somewhat archaic, interpretation, is this: not all gold catches your eye by shining bright.
Though it's true, by today's conversational American-dominated mode of speech, 1. will strike most people today as a great big "what the heck?" Readers of older literature won't find any fault with it though, I feel.
And fans of Shakespeare may prefer 'All that glisters is not gold'. (Note for students of current English: the word 'glisters' didn't make the cut. ;-) I like it though.)It's "All that glitters is not gold" here too...
I have read the whole thread, and have many of the same feelings as the other teachers, but I still feel like saying yes, they are both correct, and yes, they have the same meaning.
I am not sure that I agree. I cannot imagine any native speaker, except a logician, coming out with," Every boy does not like dancing" as a statement.I agree that both are possible and correct,
I am not sure that I agree. I cannot imagine any native speaker, except a logician, coming out with," Every boy does not like dancing" as a statement.
The only context I can imagine in which it does not sound completely unnatural to me is a contradictory response to the claim, "Every boy likes dancing". Even then, I feel that, "Not every boy likes dancing" is more likely.
Perhaps it's just me.