# 我们每天不都有汉语课



## IgorM

My book says that when we write 我们每天都有汉语课  - 都 is related to 每天。

What about negative phrase 我们每天不都有汉语课 ?  Does it mean "we have Chinese lesson not every day" or "Not all of us have Chinese lesson every day" ?


----------



## YangMuye

It means: we have Chinese lesson every day, don't we?

we have Chinese lesson not every day:  我们不是每天都有汉语课。
Not all of us have Chinese lesson every day: 我们 不都是/不全是/不是所有人 每天都有汉语课。


----------



## SuperXW

YangMuye was right. 
Notice: 我们每天不都有汉语课 is NOT grammatical, UNLESS it's a colloquial rhetorical question meaning: "we have Chinese lesson every day, don't we?" In this case, 不 is short for 不是.


----------



## CHNI

我们每天不都有没语课：We have Chinese lesson, but not every day.

These words 都，不，没，etc. concern the words/clause after it. for exm.

每个人都很聪明。Everybody is clever.
每个人不都聪明。Everybody is not clever.
每个人都不聪明。Nobody is clever.

我们都吃过饭了。We have all eaten.
我们没都吃过饭。We have not all eaten.
我们都没吃过饭。None of us has eaten.


----------



## Ghabi

CHNI said:


> 我们每天不都有没语课：We have Chinese lesson, but not every day.
> 每个人不都聪明。Everybody is not clever.
> 我们没都吃过饭。We have not all eaten.


很有趣的句子！想請教是哪裡的方言？


----------



## CHNI

这个不是方言，在北方，也就是普通话诞生的地方，这种语序是没有问题的，尤其在口语中，我们经常这样说，因为这样会使句子更简短。我可以理解南北方语言的差异，也许南方人不经常使用这种语序，而更喜欢说：
我们不是每天都有汉语课。
不是每个人都聪明。
不是我们每个人都吃过饭。
这种差异也存在于大陆普通话和台湾国语之间。比如台湾国语中的助动词“有”：
普通话我们会说“我昨天来上课了。”，而台湾人很可能会说“我昨天有来上课。”。
另外，这几个例子的主要目的是为了让其更明白这几个词在语序不同的情况下对语意的影响。


----------



## YangMuye

抱歉，您这几个句子有点费解。


CHNI said:


> 我们每天不都有没语课：We have Chinese lesson, but not every day.
> 每个人都很聪明。Everybody is clever.
> 每个人不都聪明。Everybody is not clever.
> 每个人都不聪明。Nobody is clever.
> 
> 我们都吃过饭了。We have all eaten.
> 我们没都吃过饭。We have not all eaten.
> 我们都没吃过饭。None of us has eaten.


“我们没都吃过饭。”的确可以说。

但“每个人不都聪明。”“我们每天不都有没语课”“每*不都”这样的用法我从来不用。
我在google上也找不到除了问句以外的用例。


----------



## CHNI

举个例子：

“你们昨天都去唱歌了吗？”
“我们没都去，只有小李和小王去了。”

你们从来不这么说吗？至少我可以肯定，我周围的人都会这样说的。


----------



## YangMuye

问题在于，都字表达了一种“每一个个体”都无例外的逻辑含义（量化的作用）。
“每*+都”“所有*+都”“任何*+都”“全部的*+都”
“类型+都”
“集合+都”
这三种是不一样的。

“我们都”是“集合+都”的用法，表是这个集合的每一个个体都无例外。“我们不/没都”表示有例外。
“类型+都”也可有这样的表达，比如“人类不都聪明”。

但唯有“每*+都”不可以。原因是“每”“所有”“任何”“全部”等本身也有量化的作用。不同的量化方式（“每”“所有”“任何”“全部”“都”：无例外。“不都”：存在例外）逻辑含义之间互相冲突。


----------



## Aoyama

But then I would think that ""we have (a) Chinese lesson every day, don't we?"  Would simply be :
我们每天(都)有汉语课,是不是/有没有 (吗) ?


----------



## CHNI

YangMuye said:


> 问题在于，都字表达了一种“每一个个体”都无例外的逻辑含义（量化的作用）。
> “每*+都”“所有*+都”“任何*+都”“全部的*+都”
> “类型+都”
> “集合+都”
> 这三种是不一样的。
> 
> “我们都”是“集合+都”的用法，表是这个集合的每一个个体都无例外。“我们不/没都”表示有例外。
> “类型+都”也可有这样的表达，比如“人类不都聪明”。
> 
> 但唯有“每*+都”不可以。原因是“每”“所有”“任何”“全部”等本身也有量化的作用。不同的量化方式（“每”“所有”“任何”“全部”“都”：无例外。“不都”：存在例外）逻辑含义之间互相冲突。



嗯，至少现在我们在“我们没都吃过饭”和“我们每天不都有没语课”上是能够达成共识的了。
由于汉语是一个文字自由排列宽容度比较大的语言，所以我们非常有可能听到类似于“每个人不都是艺术家”这样的说法。我在举例子之前，并没有更多的考虑有关主语的问题。但是从严格的语法意义上讲，我还是同意你的说法的。我想我的例子可以改成：
所有人都很聪明。
所有人不都聪明。
所有人都不聪明。


----------



## CHNI

Aoyama said:


> But then I would think that ""we have (a) Chinese lesson every day, don't we?" Would simply be :
> 我们每天(都)有汉语课,是不是/有没有 (吗) ?


Sur you can say：
我们每天都有汉语课，是不是？ or 我们每天都有汉语课吗？
In this case, 都 is necessary.
We never use 有没有 as "n'est-ce pas" in french in the mainland China mandarin, but it may be used in Taiwan.


----------



## Aoyama

Merci beaucoup .


----------



## SuperXW

我是北京人。我同意我们在*不严谨的口语*中，有时会说："人*不都*聪明。" 但这句话和"everybody is not clever"一样不严谨，初学者还是避免为好。


----------



## CHNI

SuperXW said:


> 我是北京人。我同意我们在*不严谨的口语*中，有时会说："人*不都*聪明。" 但这句话和"everybody is not clever"一样不严谨，初学者还是避免为好。



不管是不是严谨，只要是中国人说的话，都是汉语的一部分，就好像”世界上本没有路，走的人多了也便成了路“，现在网络上的流行语有多少是真正严谨的呢？但是他们已经是我们生活中每天都在使用的语言的一部分。而且我们还在乐此不疲的制造新的出来。像Long time no see这样的句子尽管完全不附合英语的语法，但却成了美国人都会说的一句话。所以学习汉语这一部分也是不能少的。比如我当初学英语时知道了”Everybody is not clever"的汉语意思与我想像的有多么不一样时，我还是很兴奋的。
退一步讲，这只是个例子，其更主要的意义只是为了让学习的人通过简单的例子了解这三种语序所代表的不同意义而已。我们又有几个在使用当年英语课本上给我们举出来的奇怪例句的呢？但是我们却是从这些例句中学会的英语，不是吗？


----------



## SuperXW

尽管如此，语言还是有书面语和口语，文言和俚语之分的。人们写文章、说话，也有"好"与"不好"，"严谨"与"不严谨"之分，否则"严谨"这词就没用啦！对于学习者来说，最好还是有个循序渐进的过程，先搞清最基本，最标准的用法，再谈各种变化。否则可能一团乱麻。
"人不都聪明"我还可以接受。但"我们每天不都有汉语课"，怎么都觉得别扭，写在作文里恐怕也会被当成病句。如果一定要解释，我觉得也应该加个语境，给个例子，注明"不严谨的口语"吧。（这就如同解释网络流行语时也必须告诉人家这是网络流行语，甚至是在哪几年间流行的，否则在生活中乱用也会很囧。）我觉得，如果一个简单的意思表达出来能引起一帮native speaker争论，那么这种表达方法一定是不好的……


----------



## CHNI

正如你所说，如果在特定的语境下说出这句话是正确的，那怎么能说他不严谨呢？“我们每天不都有汉语课”的语境非常明显，“不都”必定是这句话的重点，也就是要否定“你们每天都有汉语课吗？”这个问句。只要你在说这句话时把重音放在“都”上，就不会觉得那么别扭了。比如说”我们每天不*都*有汉语课，只有周二和周三有。“
而且我觉得这个句子根本不能用“不严谨”来形容，因为从语意的角度讲，它完全清楚无误的表达了它应该表达的意思，我想你想说的是，这种*语序*在书面汉语中不是很*常用*，而且仅就这一点我仍然持谨慎的怀疑态度。


----------



## YangMuye

CHNI said:


> 正如你所说，如果在特定的语境下说出这句话是正确的，那怎么能说他不严谨呢？“我们每天不都有汉语课”的语境非常明显，“不都”必定是这句话的重点，也就是要否定“你们每天都有汉语课吗？”这个问句。只要你在说这句话时把重音放在“都”上，就不会觉得那么别扭了。比如说”我们每天不都有汉语课，只有周二和周三有。“
> 而且我觉得这个句子根本不能用“不严谨”来形容，因为从语意的角度讲，它完全清楚无误的表达了它应该表达的意思，我想你想说的是，这种语序在书面汉语中不是很常用，而且仅就这一点我仍然持谨慎的怀疑态度。


Ghabi和SuperXW看起来都觉得这句话不妥。SuperXW似乎同意“每+不都”不妥，但可以接受“人+不都”。我觉得这不是偶然，不能用“常用”这个理由解释。

我还是坚持我的看法：“每”不能跟“不都”连用。他们本质的逻辑意义相矛盾。或许您的观察是正确的，您周围的人确实这样说。但是我所受到的教育，我从网上搜索到的结果，以及这里的网友的反应，都证明这句话恐怕无法表达您想表达的意思。

即使您把“我们每天不*都*有汉语课，只有周二和周三有。”这句话的重音放在“*都*”上，也只会更让我觉得这是个反问句。
但“我们每天*不*都有汉语课，只有周二和周三有。”对我来说则比较费解。
“人*不*都聪明”或“人*不都*聪明”却很清楚表达了半否定的意思。
“人不*都*聪明”则比较费解，或许需要语境。


----------



## xiaolijie

> 每个人不都聪明。Everybody is not clever.


I'm not joining the debate  but just pointing out that the English sentence here sounds strange (unless it's intended to mean: _nobody is clever_).
From the Chinese, I suppose the sentence is really intended to mean: _not everybody is clever_. Am I right?

*PS:*
By the way, can native speakers please tell me if the reply by B in the following dialogue is ok and understandable?

A:  每个人都很聪明！
B:  (我想)不都是.


----------



## SuperXW

CHNI said:


> “不都”必定是这句话的重点，也就是要否定“你们每天都有汉语课吗？”这个问句。只要你在说这句话时把重音放在“都”上，就不会觉得那么别扭了。比如说”我们每天不*都*有汉语课，只有周二和周三有。“


如果你一开始就给出这些，我会更容易接受些。因为这个重音和语境可不是"非常明显"的，连native speaker都要琢磨，更何况还可能造成反问句的歧义。要表达那个意思，用"我们*不是每天都*有……"明显更加通顺吧！


----------



## CHNI

SuperXW said:


> 如果你一开始就给出这些，我会更容易接受些。因为这个重音和语境可不是"非常明显"的，连native speaker都要琢磨，更何况还可能造成反问句的歧义。要表达那个意思，用"我们*不是每天都*有……"明显更加通顺吧！



我想我们产生歧意的地方最开始并不是怎样造句更通顺些。而是大家对我给出来的例句中有关“不都”的用法产生疑问。我当然知道每一种意义我们都可以找到N种表达方式，但这并不是我们讨论的重点。不过很明显，你已经接受了“不都”并不是不正确的汉语。如果我没有理解错的话，我想我们在这一点上已经达成了一致。
另外，我不得不再次强调，我给出来的例子只是为了让学习的人能够通过不同的词语排列对语义的影响来理解汉语的语言逻辑而已。没有必要过于纠结于句子的意义。
关于”不都“，如果你在GOOGLE搜索一下的话，你会发现除了那些叫什么阿不都blabla的人占了很大篇幅之外，很多文章的标题或内容里都包含这个表达方式，例如：
血糖高不都是糖尿病
美眉傍老外不都为拜金
你的读者不都傻
起泡酒不都叫香槟
。。。。。。
您真的觉得每次看到这些话都要琢磨吗？或者这些话有让你费解或感到奇怪吗？


----------



## Ghabi

xiaolijie said:


> From the Chinese, I suppose the sentence is really intended to mean: _not everybody is clever_. Am I right?


Yeah, I suppose so. I've never heard people use "everybody is not clever" for "not everybody is clever", though. I kept muttering the phrase under my breath, and I thought it's okay only if something is after it, for example, "everybody is not clever just because he aces the exam". What do you think?


> A:  每个人都很聪明！
> B:  (我想)不都是.


My instinctive response would be "也不是每個，我就不聰明！"


----------



## CHNI

YangMuye said:


> Ghabi和SuperXW看起来都觉得这句话不妥。SuperXW似乎同意“每+不都”不妥，但可以接受“人+不都”。我觉得这不是偶然，不能用“常用”这个理由解释。
> 
> 我还是坚持我的看法：“每”不能跟“不都”连用。他们本质的逻辑意义相矛盾。或许您的观察是正确的，您周围的人确实这样说。但是我所受到的教育，我从网上搜索到的结果，以及这里的网友的反应，都证明这句话恐怕无法表达您想表达的意思。
> 
> 即使您把“我们每天不*都*有汉语课，只有周二和周三有。”这句话的重音放在“*都*”上，也只会更让我觉得这是个反问句。
> 但“我们每天*不*都有汉语课，只有周二和周三有。”对我来说则比较费解。
> “人*不*都聪明”或“人*不都*聪明”却很清楚表达了半否定的意思。
> “人不*都*聪明”则比较费解，或许需要语境。



这次讨论变得越来越有意思了！！
我完全同意你关于“每”和“不都”连用有违逻辑的说法，我也的确承认从这个角度上讲，这句话确实不甚正确。但是我们却能在生活中听到类似的表达方式而且在没在参加这次讨论之前，大多数人也不会对这句话想表达的意思产生误解。在某种特定的语境中，它还可以表达一种特定的话气。例如当一个人说“我们每天都有汉语课吗？”回答者为了特别去否定有关他所使用的“每天都”这个词时，可以强调说”Come on, dude, 我们每天不*都----*有汉语课，OK？“


----------



## CHNI

xiaolijie said:


> I'm not joining the debate  but just pointing out that the English sentence here sounds strange (unless it's intended to mean: _nobody is clever_).
> From the Chinese, I suppose the sentence is really intended to mean: _not everybody is clever_. Am I right?


I'm not an English netive speaker, so if this is not a good sentence, I'm sorry. Yes I do want to say "not everybody is clever."
Thank you!!


----------



## Aoyama

> _not everybody is clever_


 of course ...
Could also (better) be : "not everybody is (supposed to be) clever ...


----------



## IgorM

Thank you for your comments. To be frank, the part of this discussion is way above my knowledge of the language. However the first 3 comments helped me to understand better the rules.

Igor

P.S. If it can help, my phrase is taken from the grammar book and, in its context, CHNI's comment makes sense.


----------



## xiaolijie

Ghabi said:


> I thought it's okay only if something is after it, for example, "everybody is not clever just because he aces the exam". What do you think?


I think it's ok with the immediate support of context. Without context, some people are likely to wonder what this possibly means.


----------



## YangMuye

xiaolijie said:


> *PS:*
> By the way, can native speakers please tell me if the reply by B in the following dialogue is ok and understandable?
> 
> A:  每个人都很聪明！
> B:  (我想)不都是.


It's natural.

Since the complete negative sentence is “不是所有人都是”, the reply should be “不是(所有人)都是”, but “不都是” is even better than it.
Maybe 不都是 is short for “他们不都是” or “世界上的人不都是”.


----------



## YangMuye

By the way, would someone tell me if it is possible to express the following sentences in English using the adverb “*all*” (NOT using no/not any/none of or something like it)?

每个/所有/任何/全部 学生都很聪明
??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) all clever.

每个/所有/任何/全部 学生都不聪明
??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) all not clever.

每个/所有/任何/全部 学生不都聪明
??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) not all clever.

(这些)学生都很聪明
These students are all clever.

(这些)学生并不都聪明
Not all the students are clever.
?The students are not all clever.
?Not all the students are all clever.

(这些)学生都不聪明
All the students are not clever.
?The students are all not clever.
?All the students are all not clever.


----------



## xiaolijie

YangMuye said:


> By the way, would someone tell me if it is possible to express the following sentences in English using the adverb “*all*” (NOT using no/not any/none of or something like it)?


The verdicts below are my own on the English, with X means  and V means  , but I think other people may not all agree with me 

每个/所有/任何/全部 学生都很聪明
??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) all clever. X None works! (but "They are all clever" is fine.)

每个/所有/任何/全部 学生都不聪明
??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) all not clever. X None works! (but "They are all not clever" is fine.)

每个/所有/任何/全部 学生不都聪明
??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) not all clever. X None works! (but "They are not all clever" is ok, but "Not all of them  are clever" is better.)

(这些)学生都很聪明
These students are all clever. V

(这些)学生并不都聪明
Not all the students are clever. V
?The students are not all clever. XV  (Acceptable in proper context)
?Not all the students are all clever. X

(这些)学生都不聪明
All the students are not clever. V
?The students are all not clever. XV (Acceptable in proper context)
?All the students are all not clever. X (Fine if without the 2nd "all")


----------



## YangMuye

xiaolijie said:


> The verdicts below are my own on the English, with X means  and V means  , but I think other people may not all agree with me
> 
> 每个/所有/任何/全部 学生都很聪明
> ??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) all clever. X None works! (but "They are all clever" is fine.)
> 
> 每个/所有/任何/全部 学生都不聪明
> ??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) all not clever. X None works! (but "They are all not clever" is fine.)
> 
> 每个/所有/任何/全部 学生不都聪明
> ??Each/Every/Any/All student(s) is(are) not all clever. X None works! (but "They are not all clever" is ok, but "Not all of them  are clever" is better.)
> 
> (这些)学生都很聪明
> These students are all clever. V
> 
> (这些)学生并不都聪明
> Not all the students are clever. V
> ?The students are not all clever. XV  (Acceptable in proper context)
> ?Not all the students are all clever. X
> 
> (这些)学生都不聪明
> All the students are not clever. V
> ?The students are all not clever. XV (Acceptable in proper context)
> ?All the students are all not clever. X (Fine if without the 2nd "all")


Thank you xiaolijie.

It confirmed my guess that,
1. The English adverb “all” doesn't co-occur with most quantifiers. (such as each, every, any, all, no ...)
2. Chinese “都” can co-occur with universal quantifiers such as 任何, 每, 所有, 全部...
3. “{subject} be not all ...” is just as grammatical as “{主语} 不都 ...”. But “not {universal quantifiers}{subject} ...” is better. We tend to use “不是{universal quantifiers}{subject}都...”, too. (#7,#9)

PS:


xiaolijie said:


> but I think other people may not all agree with me


You used “other people may not all” rather than “not all other people may”.


----------



## xiaolijie

YangMuye said:


> You used “other people may not all” rather than “not all other people may”.


Well spotted, YangMuye! 
But it's well used (= in proper context), and the meaning will change slightly if I use something else. The word "may" is wanted here and it will sound awkward in “not all other people may...”.


----------



## YangMuye

xiaolijie said:


> Well spotted, YangMuye!
> But it's well used (= in proper context), and the meaning will change slightly if I use something else. The word "may" is wanted here and it will sound awkward in “not all other people may...”.


Will "(maybe) not all other people will/would" work here?


----------



## Ghabi

CHNI said:


> 血糖高不都是糖尿病
> 美眉傍老外不都为拜金
> 你的读者不都傻
> 起泡酒不都叫香槟
> 。。。。。。
> 您真的觉得每次看到这些话都要琢磨吗？或者这些话有让你费解或感到奇怪吗？


這些例句跟原先大家所爭論的頗不相同吧？"美眉傍老外不都为拜金"，不是"每个美眉傍老外不都为拜金"啊。


----------



## xiaolijie

YangMuye said:


> xiaolijie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well spotted, YangMuye!
> But it's well used (= in proper context), and the meaning will change  slightly if I use something else. The word "may" is wanted here and it  will sound awkward in “not all other people may...”.
> 
> 
> 
> Will "(maybe) not all other people will/would" work here?
Click to expand...

Well, let's try putting them side by side:

a) _but I think other people may not all agree with me_
b) _but I think maybe not all other people would agree with me
_
(So, in addition to what I said in my previous post) I hope you'll see that version (a) runs more smoothly and does not call attention to itself, at the same time there's no assumption of the number of people in "_other people_"; whereas in version b, "_all other people_" assumes a definite number of people who are going to read our little thread, which is not what I had in mind when I was writing. This also explains on the other hand why the situation is not the same in your examples, where (a) is better than (b):

(这些)学生并不都聪明
a) _Not all the students are clever. 
_b)_ The students are not all clever. _

(这些)学生都不聪明
a) _All the students are not clever. 
_b)_ The students are all not clever. 
_
Since you asked, I have to say something but I think we're taking the thread away from its proper topic. So if you'd still like to continue with "all" in English, let's do so via PM


----------

