[Grammar] Every boy does not like dancing. Not every boy likes dancing.

[wotcha]

1. Every boy does not like dancing.

2. Not every boy likes dancing.


SO, is 1 same as 2 in meaning?

 

[5jj]

#1 is not natural.

 

[Rover_KE]

It's also untrue. Many boys do like dancing.

#2 is true and natural.

Rover

 

[Mr_Ben]

Also, they are not the same in meaning.

1. 100% of boys do not like dancing.

2. Not 100% (maybe 5%, maybe 50%, maybe 99%) of boys like dancing. But there are definitely some boys who don't.

 

[Barb_D]

Despite its unnatural nature, "every boy does not like" can be interpreted two ways.

The set of "every boy" "does not like" = no boys like it.

Or "it's not true that every boy likes dancing."

If you have 100 boys, the first reading requires 100 boys to "not like" it, and the second allows 1 or 99 boys to like it.

 

[konungursvia]

1. Every boy does not like dancing.

2. Not every boy likes dancing.

SO, is 1 same as 2 in meaning?

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.

 

[Raymott]

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.

To me, the proverbial expression is "All that glitters is not gold." That is, "Just because it glitters doesn't mean it's gold."
Or, in propositional logic, "There exists x, such that x glitters, and x is not gold."
The meaning is that just because something looks shiny and bright doesn't mean it's worth anything.

 

[emsr2d2]

It's "All that glitters is not gold" here too, meaning "Not everything that glitters is gold". I would not take it to mean "Everything that glitters is definitely something other than gold".

 

[konungursvia]

Cf. Tolkien. That version exists too: All that is gold does not glitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BobK]

It's "All that glitters is not gold" here too...

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.)

b

 

[Tdol]

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 agree that both are possible and correct, but I don't see them having the same meaning- maybe it's a BrE thing, but I would interpret them the same way as Mr_Ben.

 

[5jj]

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.

 

[Tdol]

But it is a correct sentence. It's not a natural one, I agree.

 

[BobK]

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.

I think, in that context, with heavy contrastive stress (and maybe a conspiratorial smile to suggest 'I'm stretching things a bit here), the underlined version might be heard. But I agree, the second version is more likely.

b

 

[konungursvia]

I find many of the contributions very thought-provoking. But in any case, I'd like to leave this google search with about 18 billion similar phrases:

https://www.google.ca/search?q="Eve...16,d.aWM&fp=f6959ade6c7f5813&biw=1067&bih=593

Not all carry their meaning in the way I have tried to describe, but many do. Interesting reading IMHO.