Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

Help with a petty argument about sentence structure

biomorph04biomorph04 Posts: 4,201
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in General Discussion #1
My friend reckons that a sentence such as "All people are not the same" means that every single person has to be different.

Whereas I say it allows for some people to be the same and some to be different.

I'm sorry, it is head-bangingly petty I know, but he insists on saying that I am wrong, there's no flexibility, which is naturally infuriating, and there's just the 2 of us here so I need some in put from other people please.

Even now as I am telling him that I'm putting it to a general discussion forum he says it would be better if I put it to a maths or logic forum as then I would be guaranteed the "correct" answer, ie his answer :)

Please help.

Comments

  • Options
    ChizzlefaceChizzleface Posts: 8,221
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #2
    A better way of putting it would be "Not all people are the same".

    Or "No two people are the same".

    It's semantics, and both can argue cases all day long, and as you say, it is a bit of a petty one really.
  • Options
    EmpiricalEmpirical Posts: 10,189
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    biomorph04 wrote: »
    My friend reckons that a sentence such as "All people are not the same" means that every single person has to be different.

    Whereas I say it allows for some people to be the same and some to be different

    I'd say its ambiguous. Therefore you are both right. Now kiss and make up! :D
  • Options
    tanstaafltanstaafl Posts: 22,310
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    You win. If 999 people out of 1000 are the same and one is different from the rest then all are not the same. 999 are different from the odd man out and the odd man out is different from the rest.
  • Options
    biomorph04biomorph04 Posts: 4,201
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    Chizzleface wrote: »
    A better way of putting it would be "Not all people are the same".

    Or "No two people are the same".

    .

    That's what he says.

    But surely "Not all people are the same" allows for some people to be the same.
  • Options
    TenpeTenpe Posts: 1,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    Everyone is different.
    Not everyone is the same.
  • Options
    Dave StentDave Stent Posts: 1,928
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    You could extend the phrase and say "all people are not the same except for a few who are the same".

    But then it starts to sound like that little quote about communism, "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others." i.e. the first part of the sentence is somewhat misleading.

    I think your friend is slightly wronger than you.
  • Options
    iainiain Posts: 63,929
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #8
    biomorph04 wrote: »
    My friend reckons that a sentence such as "All people are not the same" means that every single person has to be different.

    Whereas I say it allows for some people to be the same and some to be different.

    i'd say you were right.

    all that is saying is that everyone isn't the same, not that everyone is different from everyone else.

    in order for everyone not to be the same, it only takes one person to be different from all the others, meaning that all the others could be the same.

    Iain
  • Options
    ĐironaĐirona Posts: 15,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    biomorph04 wrote: »
    My friend reckons that a sentence such as "All people are not the same" means that every single person has to be different.
    Whereas I say it allows for some people to be the same and some to be different.
    I'm sorry, it is head-bangingly petty I know, but he insists on saying that I am wrong, there's no flexibility, which is naturally infuriating, and there's just the 2 of us here so I need some in put from other people please.
    Even now as I am telling him that I'm putting it to a general discussion forum he says it would be better if I put it to a maths or logic forum as then I would be guaranteed the "correct" answer, ie his answer :)
    Please help.

    yer right
  • Options
    Charcole911Charcole911 Posts: 6,353
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    Your sure to loose if you think two people could ever not be the same not
  • Options
    GTAGTA Posts: 270
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #11
    Technically, the sentence you refer to is a phrase, so just declare the argument null and void:p
  • Options
    alan29alan29 Posts: 34,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    If one person is different, they they are not all the same.
  • Options
    biomorph04biomorph04 Posts: 4,201
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    Basically does the word ALL mean every single one.

    He says it does, I say it doesn't.
  • Options
    ĐironaĐirona Posts: 15,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #14
    biomorph04 wrote: »
    Basically does the word ALL mean every single one.

    He says it does, I say it doesn't.

    he's right too:)
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,174
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #15
    Tell him to go duck himself. I'm not feeling very patient today :D
  • Options
    alan29alan29 Posts: 34,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    biomorph04 wrote: »
    Basically does the word ALL mean every single one.

    He says it does, I say it doesn't.

    In English it certainly does.
  • Options
    biomorph04biomorph04 Posts: 4,201
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #17
    He's just come up with a fascinating example to back up his argument.

    the sentence "All people are married" : here the word ALL does mean every single one. And I agree.

    But when we say "All people are NOT married" he insists the meaning of ALL can't have changed, but I say it has. Now we have the possibility that most people can be married but if just one person isn't then "all people are not married."

    He is filtering his angle through this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification#Negation

    Meanwhile I have tried to explain to him that for me the principle issue here is him saying categorically "you are wrong", which makes me want to strangle him. If only he would soften it by saying something like "I think you're wrong" etc :)
  • Options
    biomorph04biomorph04 Posts: 4,201
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    alan29 wrote: »
    In English it certainly does.

    surely the word ALL also refers to "the whole amount",
  • Options
    woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/ambguity.html

    Have a look here. Ah, the ever-malleable English language!
  • Options
    juswotmawatchinjuswotmawatchin Posts: 5,252
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #20
    Ha ha ha ha :D:D:D

    The elephant in the room is .......

    you are unique, just like everyone else
  • Options
    alan29alan29 Posts: 34,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #21
    biomorph04 wrote: »
    surely the word ALL also refers to "the whole amount",

    Which would include each constituent part.
  • Options
    _ben_ben Posts: 5,758
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #22
    "not the same" means "different", therefore "all people are not the same" means "all people are different", i.e. nobody can be same.

    "Not all people are the same" means that some people are different, it could be everyone but doesn't have to.
  • Options
    HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #23
    I'd agree with the OP. All people are not the same (but some are).
  • Options
    WombatDeathWombatDeath Posts: 4,723
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #24
    Your friend is certainly correct insofar as you won't get an accurate consensus here. Most of this rabble can't use BODMAS correctly, let alone debate formal logic.

    Tee hee. Only joking.

    Anyway, I think that the specific question in the OP is a bit unfortunate, since "the same" is ambiguous. The marital status version is easier to deal with. "All people are not married" means, if you're talking to a mathematician, that no people are married.

    (All people) are (not married).

    "Not all people are married" means that there is at least one person who is not married.

    Not (all people are married).

    So he's technically right, but you could try arguing that language is governed by convention (see also the "I could/couldn't care less" question) rather than by mathematicians, though I don't expect you'll get a favourable response.

    Not that it matters, but I dislike the "all people are not married" form partly because it's needlessly ambiguous and partly because it's just clunky.
  • Options
    biomorph04biomorph04 Posts: 4,201
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #25
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    I'd agree with the OP. All people are not the same (but some are).

    :) Blimey . I ended up banging my head so repeatedly last night that I eventually lost the plot entirely and ended up like an emotional runaway train, unable to stop myself from accusing him of displaying a consistently superior know-it-all attitude towards me, and blurting out one pent up mashed up example after another.

    Ay Yi Yi. And the worse thing is, when I said I was sorry for going off on one, he just said "apology accepted" and I instantly wanted to strangle him again for not thinking he needed to say sorry to me :) But I kept quiet :)
Sign In or Register to comment.