A linguistic survey

[Jonathon]

Please say where you're from, and if you feel the need to explain your answer, go ahead and do so.

[eslaine]

Feeling misunderstood?

(oops, NoCal)

[Jonathon]

No, just curious. I wonder if it's a regional difference, or if it's something more random. I had always thought one was American and one was Canadian (because I heard it on some Canadian PBS shows growing up), but I just read something in which an American used the Canadian one. Now I'm wondering what the distribution is.

[TheTick]

Picked the second choice, grew up in Virginia.

[saxon75]

I went with "none of them were," but I think there is definitely room for misunderstanding.  I think I'd have to hear it in context and out loud.  It's a poor way to phrase it either way.  Really, it should be "not all of them were . . ." or "none of them were . . ."

I had a similar problem back in college with an ad that got posted on some of the tables in the dining hall.  It was an anti-alcohol abuse campaign, and the slogan was "Everyone doesn't drink."  It seems clear that they meant "Not everyone drinks," but it could also be interpreted as "No one drinks."  I grimaced every time I saw that stupid ad.

<--- From California, central coast region

[sarcasticmuppet]

Second choice, raised in Arkansas by Californian speakers.

[FLR]

all of them weren't

none of them were


I think the first meaning would be more clear with "Not ALL of them were".  I guess with the right inflection it could make sense.  But parsing it logically, the second choice seemed obvious.  I grew up in Virginia and moved to Utah at 17.

"All of them weren't broken."

"All of them weren't green."

"All of them weren't hungry."

You know, I'm now having trouble thinking of it meaning what I voted for.

"All of them weren't going to St. Ives."

[Jonathon]

Each choice is perfectly logical, but it depends on your definition of all (or everyone or whatever).


Hmm. Maybe we need some Canadians to come over here and vote so I can see if my hypothesis is right.

[FLR]

"Logically" only the second makes sense, because all means each and every.  

The only reading that makes the first possible is if "n't" (not) commands "all" and not "were".  

But the way it is commonly used in speech, "n't" does command "all".

[Jonathon]

That's the thing: someone with a different definiton of everybody could use the phrase "everybody doesn't like it" the way we use "not everybody likes it." Such a definition wouldn't be "each and every individual," but rather something like "the group as a whole."

[rivka]

Grew up in NJ and SoCal (speak patterns are mostly SoCal). I went with the second choice, but I had to think about it. I agree with saxy -- it's poorly phrased, and a bit ambiguous. I like his alternatives better.

[Jonathon]

Just to clarify: this is just a survey. I'm trying to uncover a possible semantic difference between dialects. I'm not looking for alternatives, though if you want to explain what it is about one or the other that seems funny or illogical, go right ahead.  

[Icarus]

I can recognize it as either depending on the context and emphasis. I live in Florida and English is not my first language, so maybe I'm just dumb.    

[Jonathon]

Are you the one who voted "other"?



And out of curiosity, how old were you when you learned English?

[Icarus]

Yeah, I voted "Other" because "Both" or "Either" weren't options.

I was very young when I learned English. Whatever age kindergarten was.

[Nathan Novak]

I voted for the second one. I grew up in Utah. Uh... it sounded better.  

[Lady Montagu]

I voted for "other" for the same reasons saxy outlined. The original sentence could mean either of the first two options.

Texas and Utah.  

[Icarus]

Saxy or me?

"If you want me bawdy and you think I'm saxy, come on sugar let me know?"    

[FLR]

"Piper solo!"
...
"We have a piper down.  I repeat, a piper is down.  Don't worry, he's just pished."

[Uchiha Itachi]

I'm going to nullify what FLR said.

The meaning is "Not all of them were", unless you remove the contraction to make it read "All of them were not".  "Not all of them were" would equate to "some of them were not" and "All of them were not" would equate to "None of them were".

Using the contraction removes any particular emphasis on the "not" clause and it becomes the less strong "not".  This is generally true for contractions, and if you avoid using a common contraction then it automatically emphasizes the meaning.  "Not" is a particularly good example of this, if you look at it in contraction and out.  The "to be" words are also good examples.

By the way, I nullify FLR because we grew up in the same households (more so than my other sibs, even).

[Noemon]

Voted for option 1.  Grew up in northeastern Kansas, of parents who had grown up in different parts of the state (my paternal  grandfather was with the rail road, so my father moved around the state quite a bit growing up, but was mostly from western KS.  My mother was born and raised in northeastern KS

[Porter]

I chose the second one.  It's hard to believe that somebody could parse it in any other way.

I have lived 10 years in Texas, 10 years in Oklahoma, and most recently 10 years in Utah.

[Jonathon]

So, Noemon, would you be more likely to say "not all of them were" or "all of them weren't"?

[Noemon]

The former, mostly, but I probably produce the latter now and then.  Kind of depends on the context, I suppose.

[FLR]

By the way, I nullify FLR because we grew up in the same households (more so than my other sibs, even).

However one of these households was with a dude who thought the thing you put a hot pan on is called a "travis".