# Is "Every...not" also partial negation?



## cheshire

*Everybody* does*n't* trust the truth.​I know this sentence to mean for example, "John doesn't trust, Mary doesn't trust, Tom doesn't trust." (*Complete* negation)

But could the sentence also possibly mean "John doesn't trust, Mary doesn't trust, but Tom trusts."? (*Partial* negation)


----------



## nzseries1

No, it can't mean that.  Well, not in my opinion.

EVERYBODY does not trust the truth.
Therefore,
NOBODY does trust the truth.


----------



## AngelEyes

I agree with nzseries1.

If everybody doesn't, then nobody does.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Matching Mole

"No one trusts the truth" expresses your first interpretation, and "Not everyone trusts the truth" (or "Most people don't trust the truth") expresses your second, but "Everybody doesn't trust the truth" cannot mean the second.

The problem with the statement is that it is artificial and no one would say it. I don't think statements necessarily mean anything if they are not part of usage. One can use logic to parse it, as nzseries1 and AngelEyes have, and I would agree with their conclusion, but to me it's a bit of an academic exercise.


----------



## nzseries1

That's interesting logic Matching_Mole.

My problem is that I studied Maths in school, and therefore your theory of:
_"I don't think statements necessarily mean anything if they are not part of usage."_
means that English will be suffering a slow decline into oblivion, as no new statements can ever be created.

That's the problem when you're brought up with Maths and Logic like I have


----------



## Thomas Tompion

You visit your son's headmaster and ask about swimming recreation. You ask him if all the pupils go swimming.

When he replies everybody doesn't go swimming, he means almost certainly that some people go swimming but that there are others who don't. Why doesn't the same apply to trusting the truth?

X is the class of people who trust the truth; Y is the class of people who don't trust the truth. The fact that there are people in class Y means that everybody doesn't trust the truth.

I'm for Cheshire's partial negation.

P.S.  Some people forget that everybody doesn't trust the truth can mean not everybody trusts the truth.


----------



## nzseries1

Thomas Tompion said:


> You visit your son's headmaster and ask about swimming recreation. You ask him if all the pupils go swimming.
> 
> When he replies everybody doesn't go swimming, he means mean almost certainly that some people go swimming but that there are others who don't. Why doesn't the same apply to trusting the truth?
> 
> I'm for Cheshire's partial negation.


 
I don't agree Thomas.  Try replacing "go swimming" with "swim" or "swims" and see if you still agree.

I think the difference is that in your sentence: "everybody doesn't go swimming", the word *not* affects "go swimming". Everybody does not swim. Nobody swims.

If you were to say "Not everybody goes swimming", in this sentence the word *not* affects "everybody". Not everybody swims. There are people who don't swim, and there are people that do.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Everybody doesn't swim is not the same as saying nobody swims.  It can mean not everybody swims.  This is my point.


----------



## nzseries1

Thomas Tompion said:


> Everybody doesn't swim is not the same as saying nobody swims. It can mean not everybody swims. This is my point.


 
I find it surprising that you think Everybody doesn't swim is *not* the same as saying nobody swims.  But... each to their own, of course, I would put this down to regional differences.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

nzseries1 said:


> I find it surprising that you think Everybody doesn't swim is *not* the same as saying nobody swims. But... each to their own, of course, I would put this down to regional differences.


 
But this is what Cheshire's question is about.

I'd be surprised if a question of logic had much to do with regional differences of English.

You didn't comment on this part of my argument (in post 6):



> X is the class of people who trust the truth; Y is the class of people who don't trust the truth. The fact that there are people in class Y means that everybody doesn't trust the truth.


----------



## nzseries1

Thomas Tompion said:


> X is the class of people who trust the truth; Y is the class of people who don't trust the truth. The fact that there are people in class Y means that everybody doesn't trust the truth.


 
Hmm, this makes me rack my brains a bit.

The fact that "there are people in class Y", given no other information, means *only *that *at least one person* is in class Y, i.e. "at least one person doesn't trust the truth".  It does *not* state that *everybody* is in class Y.

To say that "*everybody* doesn't trust the truth" means that everybody is in class Y, i.e. nobody is in class X, i.e. nobody trusts the truth.


----------



## AngelEyes

If every body (every person) does not swim in any given situation, then in my world, there's not one body (one person) who does.

I don't understand how you can stipulate specifically that your statement includes "every" - meaning "all" - and still have "some" left over.

Where is the ambiguousness in the word "every"?


*AngelEyes*


----------



## AngelEyes

Thomas Tompion said:


> X is the class of people who trust the truth; Y is the class of people who don't trust the truth. The fact that there are people in class Y means that everybody doesn't trust the truth.


 
But Thomas, if I understand your logic here, my reply to you would be this: cheshire's original question didn't include the possibility there was anything BUT one class of people being considered.

*Everybody* was used in the sentence without further details. It's a contained environment of very simple proportions.

In that first sentence, everybody doesn't trust the truth. Continuing from there, if everybody doesn't, then nobody does. At least in this specific example.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AngelEyes said:


> If every body (every person) does not swim in any given situation, then in my world, there's not one body (one person) who does.
> 
> I don't understand how you can stipulate specifically that your statement includes "every" - meaning "all" - and still have "some" left over.
> 
> Where is the ambiguousness in the word "every"?
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
Hi AngelEyes,

But would you say everybody does not swim upstream?  And in what circumstances?

If someone asked you does everybody swim upstream?  You might reply: no, of course not, everybody doesn't swim upstream.  What you'd mean by that, surely, is not everybody swims upstream, which would be the more natural way of expressing the idea.  I can't readily think of other circumstances in which your expression would be natural or idiomatic in BE.

If you wanted to say that nobody swam upstream, that would be the thing to say: nobody swims upstream.  Then, at last, we would be clear that everyone was swimming in some other direction, downstream, one supposes.


----------



## nzseries1

Q: Does everybody swim upstream?
A: No, everybody doesn't swim upstream.

This is not the logical answer to this question. This answer does in fact mean that there is nobody who swims upstream.

Q: Does everybody swim upstream?
A: No, not everybody swims upstream.

This is the more logical answer to this question.

*Everybody does swim upstream. *Everyone does it.
*Everybody does not swim upstream. *Nobody does it.

*Everybody does. *Everyone does.
*Everybody does not.* Nobody does.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AngelEyes said:


> But Thomas, if I understand your logic here, my reply to you would be this: cheshire's original question didn't include the possibility there was anything BUT one class of people being considered.


 
Hi AngelEyes,

Have a look at Cheshire's original question; it did include that possibility, you know. Here's the bit concerned:



			
				cheshire said:
			
		

> John doesn't trust, Mary doesn't trust, but Tom trusts.


 
John and Mary are in class Y; Tom in class X. I'm confident Cheshire was consciously (and explicitly) raising just the matter we are considering.


----------



## Matching Mole

I see what you mean Thomas, but I was reading the OP phrase as a stand-alone statement. In context and with emphasis it takes on a meaning:

"I trust the truth."
"Well,_ everyone_ doesn't trust the truth."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

nzseries1 said:


> Q: Does everybody swim upstream?
> A: No, everybody doesn't swim upstream.
> 
> This is not the logical answer to this question. This answer does in fact mean that there is nobody who swims upstream.


 
Hi Nzseries,

I wouldn't call this answer illogical but unidiomatic.  Do you, in NZE, actually say everybody doesn't swim upstream, when you mean everybody swims downstream, or nobody swims upstream?


----------



## nzseries1

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Nzseries,
> 
> I wouldn't call this answer illogical but unidiomatic. Do you, in NZE, actually say everybody doesn't swim upstream, when you mean everybody swims downstream, or nobody swims upstream?


 
Honestly no, I simply wouldn't say that sentence structure at all.

I think it simply is open to interpretation.  Even trying to analyse the sentences using logic, it can still be interpreted two different ways, and I think we will have to live with that


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Matching Mole said:


> I see what you mean Thomas, but I was reading the OP phrase as a stand-alone statement. In context and with emphasis it takes on a meaning:
> 
> "I trust the truth."
> "Well,_ everyone_ doesn't trust the truth."


Thanks for this, Mole.  I'm interested in the circumstances in which one might say everybody doesn't trust the truth, as opposed to the more natural (in most circumstances) not everybody trusts the truth.  Hence my headmaster and the swimming.


----------



## AngelEyes

cheshire said:


> *Everybody doesn't trust the truth.*
> 
> I know this sentence to mean for example, "John doesn't trust, Mary doesn't trust, Tom doesn't trust." (*Complete* negation)
> 
> But could the sentence also possibly mean "John doesn't trust, Mary doesn't trust, but Tom trusts."? (*Partial* negation)


 

I need a Painkiller, I think!

I'm trying to work only from cheshire's original sentence. I wouldn't write it that way, but hey, it's still a viable sentence.

I wasn't given any leeway with this sentence. Cheshire was asking if he/she could insert the partial negation into the sentence. I say no, not the way it's written.

It's clear-cut and brief.

Thomas, where in that sentence do you find permission to add the possibility there's anyone left who doesn't tell the truth? If we're told everybody doesn't, who's left that does?

I'm just working with that sentence presented.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

nzseries1 said:


> Honestly no, I simply wouldn't say that sentence structure at all.


 
I'm relieved; I was getting ready to be surprised.

In BE we would say it in the sort of circumstances which I've instanced; indeed it would be a natural and idiomatic thing for my hypothetical headmaster to say, and when he said it, it would carry the meaning which I suggested back then. Like you, I wouldn't say it naturally in other contexts.

I love Cheshire's questions because they force us to consider the way we use language as opposed to how, at times, we might think we ought to be using it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AngelEyes said:


> I need a Painkiller, I think!
> 
> I'm trying to work only from cheshire's original sentence. I wouldn't write it that way, but hey, it's still a viable sentence.
> 
> I wasn't given any leeway with this sentence. Cheshire was asking if he/she could insert the partial negation into the sentence. I say no, not the way it's written.
> 
> It's clear-cut and brief.
> 
> Thomas, where in that sentence do you find permission to add the possibility there's anyone left who doesn't tell the truth? If we're told everybody doesn't, who's left that does?
> 
> I'm just working with that sentence presented.
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
Dear AngelEyes,
  It was trusting, not telling the truth.  Can you be forgetting John and Mary, who don't trust, or little Tom who does?


----------



## panjandrum

Does everybody trust the truth?
No everybody doesn't trust the truth - John and Mary don't trust the truth.

Is "everybody trusts the truth" a true statement?
No, "everybody trusts the truth" is not a true statement.

Perhaps it is more correct, and indeed more normal, to write, _"Not everybody trusts the truth_," But when I hear "_Everybody doesn't trust the truth_," I don't hear it meaning that no one trusts the truth.

This is just like multiple negatives that cannot always be algebraically processed.


----------



## AngelEyes

Dearest Thomas,

Cover your ears, please. That way you won't hear me screaming here in Michigan.    I have a big mouth; it'll hurt if you don't.

Now...aren't we only supposed to work with the original sentence?

That sentence doesn't mention Tom, John, or Mary. I don't have to trust them. They don't exist! Not in that sentence. Cheshire added them after the fact and wondered if they could be included to cloud the outcome.

Put them in that original sentence, and we have a whole new ball game. If cheshire tells me that Tom does trust, then we can't keep the sentence that says everybody doesn't. But Tom isn't even mentioned in that sentence. The only one who is, is everybody. Which leaves nobody.

Of course, my migraine keeps me from seeing my screen clearly now, so who knows? Whew. My throat hurts...


*AngelEyes*


----------



## nzseries1

AngelEyes said:


> The only one who is, is everybody. Which leaves nobody.
> 
> Of course, my migraine keeps me from seeing my screen clearly now, so who knows? Whew. My throat hurts...


 
"The only one who [doesn't trust], is everybody. Which leaves nobody."
I like the way you put that 

I am prepared to concede and admit that it could be read both ways, even considering only the original sentence.

I don't think this kind of sentence structure is idiomatic, ever. Not even in the headmaster and the swimmers case. He would say "not everybody is swimming" or "everybody is swimming", I think.

Angeleyes, your migraine isn't just from this thread, is it?  

EDIT: It appears the results are in... and there are two for and two against [partial negation]. How about that.


----------



## panjandrum

There are fifty of us.
We are going to the park.
We have a bus that can take forty people.
We are all going to the park.
Can everybody go in the bus?
No, everybody can't go in the bus, ten people will have to walk.
This use of everybody <negative verb> is, I suggest, very common indeed.

*Everybody doesn't X* is not the same as *nobody does X*.
It may not be a commonly-accepted usage, but where used, it means *not everybody does X*.

Put another way, negating *everybody *gives *not everybody*, it does not give *nobody*.

Algebra and English are like oil and water.


----------



## nzseries1

I like your example panjandrum. In *this context*, you're right.
However, the sentence, *as it stood with the context provided*, without using any mathematical logic, still *to me* meant "nobody".


----------



## nzseries1

panjandrum said:


> It may not be a commonly-accepted usage, but where used, it means *not everybody does X*.


 
Panjandrum, I don't agree.  It might mean this *to you*, but not *to me*.



panjandrum said:


> Put another way, negating *everybody *gives *not everybody*, it does not give *nobody*.


 
"Everybody does not go swimming." In this sentence, in my opinion,* Not* does not negate "everybody". *Not* negates "does".


----------



## panjandrum

nzseries1 said:


> Panjandrum, I don't agree.  It might mean this *to you*, but not *to me*.
> "Everybody does not go swimming." In this sentence, in my opinion,* Not* does not negate "everybody". *Not* negates "does".


I agree, I should have included that caveat.
I had come to believe that this form of sentence is not normally used by most people, whereas it is common in my part of the world.
Hence my comment that "... where used it means ..." was kind of equivalent to a "to me" qualification


----------



## nzseries1

True that  Sorry I'm probably starting to take things to literally after reading this thread... picking apart every small detail! All this thinking about language really does hurt my head!

I wasn't aware of that actually, that they used it a lot in Ireland (and also Northern Ireland). Therefore we should definitely trust your opinion!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Nzseries agreed back in thread 19 that he would never use the expression *Everybody* does*n't* trust the truth to say either nobody trusts the truth, or, more likely, not everybody trusts the truth.

I produced a circumstance in which one might say it (my headmaster and the swimming example in post 6), but then it clearly meant not everybody trusts the truth, which would be the normal way of talking.

Are we now agreed that as normally used, in the very few circumstances where it would be used, it would be a case of what Cheshire calls partial negation? For total negation we would surely say nobody trusts the truth?


----------



## panjandrum

It's interesting to look at the Google links produced by a search for:
"everybody doesn't" English grammar.

This topic appears in lots of different forums. There is no doubt that both points of view are held - in some cases with crusading fervour 

I suspect that, apart from context, the way the sentence is spoken has a strong influence on the meaning.


----------



## AngelEyes

I think you've offered a third choice, Thomas:

1.Everybody
2.Not everybody (meaning some do, some don't.)
3.Nobody

I don't believe Cheshire wrote the original sentence in a clear enough fashion for me to agree there's partial negation connected to it.

I know this isn't what you think, but that's okay. 

I will agree with you that the best sentence would be:
_Nobody trusts the truth. _

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AngelEyes said:


> I think you've offered a third choice, Thomas:
> 
> 1.Everybody
> 2.Not everybody (meaning some do, some don't.)
> 3.Nobody
> 
> I don't believe Cheshire wrote the original sentence in a clear enough fashion for me to agree there's partial negation connected to it.
> 
> I know this isn't what you think, but that's okay.
> 
> I will agree with you that the best sentence would be:
> _Nobody trusts the truth. _
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
I'm interested to know if there are circumstances in which you'd use the everybody doesn't ... formula, AngelEyes.  I've given one example.  Would my example be possible in AE?  Are there other circumstances in which the formula might be used?

I feel that until we've produced really viable contexts for using the expression, we can't easily say what it means.


----------



## Txiri

This thread sort of left me dizzy ...  

My two cents:

It´s a far more usual construction to say, 
"Not everybody trusts the truth."

It´s only when you have a more developed construction, such as some of you have included, when you would alter the word order in such a way that, 

Everybody doesn´t trust the truth.  (It´s contrastive with the preceding text) ... all that really happened here is that the "not" got shifted from immediately in front of the indefinite pronoun, to its contracted position as part of the auxiliary.


----------



## Marty10001

When using "Every" in the negative we should negate with "not":
"Not everybody trusts the truth"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Marty10001 said:


> When using "Every" in the negative we should negate with "not":
> "Not everybody trusts the truth"


 
Perhaps we should, Marty, but do we?  Could you under any circumstances calmly say Cheshire's original sentence?


----------



## panjandrum

Here are some examples of the formula caught in the wild (Google).

*Everybody doesn't hate you*, it just feels like it. _Source_
... not everybody OR nobody

But if by "good pizza" you mean fresh ingredients, delicate flavors, thin crust, fresh mozzarella cheese that doesn't string up, and sauces so perfectly spiced that you can't believe *everybody doesn't make pizza* like this ... _Source_
... not everybody.

 But *everybody doesn't like to study languages*. Source
... not everybody - and on a language site 

Must rush ... ...


----------



## AngelEyes

Thomas Tompion said:


> You visit your son's headmaster and ask about swimming recreation. You ask him if all the pupils go swimming.
> 
> When he replies everybody doesn't go swimming, he means almost certainly that some people go swimming but that there are others who don't. Why doesn't the same apply to trusting the truth?
> 
> X is the class of people who trust the truth; Y is the class of people who don't trust the truth. The fact that there are people in class Y means that everybody doesn't trust the truth.
> 
> I'm for Cheshire's partial negation.
> 
> P.S. Some people forget that everybody doesn't trust the truth can mean not everybody trusts the truth.


 
When the headmaster stated, "Everybody doesn't go swimming." I take that literally to mean "Nobody goes swimming." He basically stated, "Everybody does *not* go swimming."

My comment that you added a third possibility was this one:
"Not everybody goes swimming."
That leaves the ambiguousness - the partial negation - that cheshire desired.

I think this is what Panj alluded to, or at least those posts in his link did this: they based their opinions on the placement of the word, *not*,in the sentence to decide the intention: partial or total negation. (nzseries1 wrote it in this thread, too.)

The way the original sentence is written is total negation. The fact that cheshire wanted to add additional variables - like well, what if Tom did, but Mary and John didn't - that wasn't represented anywhere in that sentence. 

If cheshire had written it like this:
"Not everybody trusts the truth." Then I would say it contains partial negation.

However, I read Panj's post, and his example of the people on the bus does raise questions in my mind, because he gave context, and all that context clarified the sentence. But if I read that sentence alone: 
"Everybody can't go in the bus." I understand it differently.

I can't decide if it's the difference in meaning between "does not/ don't" and "cannot/can't", if it's the addition of context that changes the intent, or if it's just a matter of the sentence being a weakly worded one to begin with when written like it is!

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AngelEyes said:


> I think you've offered a third choice, Thomas:
> 
> 1.Everybody
> 2.Not everybody (meaning some do, some don't.)
> 3.Nobody
> 
> I don't believe Cheshire wrote the original sentence in a clear enough fashion for me to agree there's partial negation connected to it.


 
Look at these three 'possibilities':

1.Everybody doesn't (means not everybody does - i.e. same thing as 2)
2.Not everybody does (meaning some do, some don't.)
3.Nobody does (this is the meaning which I need persuading about - I can't see a circumstance in which everybody doesn't means this, which isn't to say there isn't one)

My comments above outline my current position.  I don't even see an ambiguity: 1. means the same thing as 2., and I've not been persuaded that 3. is a serious contender: arguments have mostly taken the form of 'this is what it means' without a context that I've found persuasive.

I would very much like to see a serious case made for a use of the sentence in meaning 3. but I'm not persuaded by Panj.'s reading of his first example; it's in an idiom which is very unfamiliar to me and I may have misread it.  Panj.'s other two examples are both in meaning 2.


----------



## panjandrum

Just back.
Here is an interesting example:
Fear is what we make it.  Oh, what a subject.  Let’s talk about what *everybody doesn’t want to ever talk about*.
_Source_

I think that is a clear example of "type 3".



ThomasT is not persuaded by my suggestion that there is ambiguity in:





> *Everybody doesn't hate you*, it just feels like it. _Source_
> ... not everybody OR nobody.


I am still open to the possibility that this example means "nobody hates you".


----------



## tinlizzy

cheshire said:


> Everybody doesn't trust the truth.


Everybody doesn't know the truth.
Everybody doesn't like the truth.
Everybody doesn't tell the truth.
Everybody doesn't hear the truth.
Everybody doesn't speak the truth.

They are all partial negations, all the time, when the context is not given because everybody means every person on earth (with no context) like the original sentence, and we know for a fact that a person saying this would not know every person on earth.

There- my job is done


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> Just back.
> Here is an interesting example:
> Fear is what we make it. Oh, what a subject. Let’s talk about what *everybody doesn’t want to ever talk about*.
> _Source_
> 
> I think that is a clear example of "type 3".


 
Thank you for the example, Panj.  I agree: it's unequivocally a case of "type 3".  I'm glad you gave the source, because the whole piece is interesting: she varies sentence lengths in a way which suggests she's striving for effect in her writing, but the individual sentences are often badly formed and clumsy, like this one.

Returning to *Everybody doesn't hate you: *when might someone say it?  A child is crying and saying everybody hates me, everybody hates me.  The mother picks it up and says everybody doesn't hate you, darling.  What does she mean?  Clearly that the child's statement is false, but does she mean not everybody hates you - i.e. some do, so don't? or nobody hates you?  I agree with your suggestion that any implication of partial negation would bring only partial comfort: she must mean nobody hates you, and that's what the child will understand by her words. 

 The fact remains that the extract from the writings of Linn Leonne Lindner suggests that she hasn't a very delicate sense of style, and the mother would put her point over to an English-speaking adult better by saying nobody hates you.

I concede, now, that we ought to warn Cheshire that, while it usually entains partial negation, in some circumstances, relatively rare ones, certain speakers may use the construction to imply total negation.


----------



## alitaker

I think we're missing the point.
In my opinion you're mixing logic math rules with linguistic instruments.

First of all the topic talks about "Every...not". Indeed! 
The word "everybody" is actually a compound word of "every" and "body", which, in my opinion is just as "every one" or, in particular cases "every human".
Therefore when you make the opposite of "Every one" you must use "no one" (no human).

Look at the topic: "every X not" can be then changed to "no X". And this is logic.
For every one the statement "doesn't trust the truth" is true
Becomes: 
For no one the statement "doesn't trust the truth" is false
or:
For no one the statement "does trust the truth" is true
Again: this is logic math. 
Say that: "not for every one the statement 'does trust the truth' is true" and you fail your math exam! 

In logic characters "V" represents "everyone" and the opposite of "V" the empty set. 

The "not everybody" you're using is a linguistic tool taken from latin, which has a different meaning.
Eg: 
"the no nonsense"
In latin there is a common use of "no nothing" which means "just a little bit more than nothing" 

So, in this case "not everybody" means "someone" (just a few more than no one), which cannot be used in the logic conversion of
"affirmation + negative" == "negation + positive"
because the meaning would be changed completely.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

What advice are you going to give Cheshire, then, Alitaker? That he should take it to be partial negation, even though we've suggested that in certain circumstances the negation is total?


----------



## panjandrum

I think that the best advice to Cheshire is that this structure is ambiguous and is best avoided, especially in written English.  It is very clear from this discussion, and from many similar discussions elsewhere, that there is no agreement on its meaning.

However, where the structure is used and occurs naturally there is no ambiguity - or rather, the dual meaning of the structure is managed through the use of other cues.


----------



## cheshire

I tried to find in what condition Thomas Thompion's chart #3 is meant in "everybody...doesn't", but as you say, there's none.
Thus, I'll take panjandrum's advice that it's ambiguous and best be avoided.

Thank you everyone, this thread is the best discussion on Internet about this issue.


----------



## alitaker

Thomas Tompion said:


> What advice are you going to give Cheshire, then, Alitaker? That he should take it to be partial negation, even though we've suggested that in certain circumstances the negation is total?



No, sorry, I probably forgot this detail, though I thought it was clear: it is never a partial negation, unless you state it.

So, to summarize:
"Every...not" is never a partial negation, because you can only convert (using logic rules) to "no..." (e.g. "every-body does not trust truth"=="no-body does trust truth")

"not every" is always a partial negation (e.g. "not everybody trust truth"), because it's in the statement itself (with the linguistic instrument of explicit negation)


----------



## panjandrum

alitaker said:


> No, sorry, I probably forgot this detail, though I thought it was clear: it is never a partial negation, unless you state it.
> 
> So, to summarize:
> "Every...not" is never a partial negation, because you can only convert (using logic rules) to "no..." (e.g. "every-body does not trust truth"=="no-body does trust truth")[...]


As you seem to be in the minority here, it would be very helpful if you were to provide a reference source in support of your view. Or at least a few more examples to illustrate:
"every-body does not trust truth"=="no-body does trust truth".
 Let me explain why I ask this.

The native speakers here support "everybody doesn't ..." being partial negation.
Three were of that view from the outset, the others came to agree that this is possible, based on real examples.
The two native speakers who are familiar with this structure in practice use it to mean partial negation.
It is easy to find examples of "everybody doesn't ..." meaning "not everybody does ...".
It is difficult to find examples of "everybody doesn't ..." meaning "nobody does ...".
It seems that just about every English language site on the web includes a long and inconclusive discussion on this topic.


----------



## AngelEyes

I've looked online for any kind of in-depth information on partial negation, and I can't find one. 

Yesterday I gave my mom cheshire's sentence and I asked her, "First thing off the top of your head, Mom. How many people don't trust the truth?"

Her first reply was exactly as mine. "First of all, that's a badly constructed sentence."

I asked her to answer, anyway, and she said, "The way you asked it? Nobody trusts the truth, but I wouldn't have worded it that way, because there are some people who do."

My point is that when you word it the way it was worded, you invite confusion and disagreement, especially if you take the sentence literally. I do. I know it's not true, but I wasn't asked how to re-phrase it to make it logical and crystal clear. I was just asked how I would interpret that sentence. 

And there was no further context, so it was simple for me, in my mind. As written, it meant nobody.

"Not everybody trusts the truth." is a partial negation to me.

That's still my answer, and I can't believe that, a week later, I'm still thinking about it. 

*AngelEyes*

EDIT_:_
_This discussion reminds me of a very old comedy skit:_
ABBOT&COSTELLO


----------



## kenny4528

> My point is that when you word it the way it was worded, you invite confusion and disagreement, especially if you take the sentence literally.


 
Indeed, I can imagine this situation, and it also takes place in my mother tongue.(so do other languages, I think)


----------

