This is a pet peeve of mine, and my apologies if it feels inappropriate. I also recognise that, given your post, you are likely not be a native English speaker. If that's the case, please accept this as intended to help you improve your already excellent English.
However:
> ... everyone doesn't want to be an entrepreneur.
The opposite of "Everyone wants to be an entrepreneur" is "Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur" which is (logically although not in emphasis) equivalent to "Some people don't want to be entrepreneurs."
To say "everyone doesn't want to be an entrepreneur" means that there are no people in the world who want to be entrepreneurs, which is clearly false, because some people do.
Again, apologies, but this is a common mistake, and it's really worth being able to recognise it when you see it, and to be able to avoid it.
Sometimes it's worth recognising it and ignoring it. Apologies if this was one of those occasions.
I see what you're trying to do, to help the parent with American/British English, but actually the language the parent is writing in is a typical idiom found in Indian English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_English).
English is the official second language of India (which doesn't mean an awful lot but consider that Hindi in Devanagari is the main language and is only spoken by just over 40% of Indians) and is generally spoken with Indian idioms. It's been this way for several hundred years. Indian English is generally as valid as American English, although less formalised.
I appreciate your comments, and I agree with some of what you say. Idiomatic language is not always literal language.
In America, for example, people often say "The proof is in the pudding." Logically this does not make sense. Logically the original saying - "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" - makes sense, and can be interpreted literally.
But idioms are atomic. They cannot be understood in any way other than as a complete whole with a meaning unextractable from the components.
But idiomatic language can lead to non-understanding, and sometimes mis-understanding. Recognising it when it occurs can be important, especially when what is said can be interpreted literally and logically in a manner other than intended.
My intent is not to prevent idiomatic usage of language, that would be Sisyphean. My intent to to highlight a case where was was said, when interpreted logically, is not what was intended.
>My intent is to highlight a case where what was said, when interpreted logically, is not what was intended.
I disagree that "interpreted logically" the statement is not what was intended. It just depends how you interpret the word "everyone". Is it a single representative object which takes on the combined characteristics of all the people it represents? Or is it a stand-in for comparing each and every person that it represents?
You're saying it must be the latter. If you're talking about person A, person B, and person C, then "everyone" is short hand for comparing against each one. So, "Is everyone tall?" means "Is A tall?" AND "Is B tall?" AND "Is C tall?"
However, that isn't the only valid way it's used. "Everyone" could be its own object, so you don't need to check against each of the underlying ones. And it only has a certain characteristic when each of the underlying people has that characteristic. So, if Person A is short and has green eyes, person B is of average height and has green eyes, and person C is tall and has green eyes, then "Everyone" takes on the green eyes characteristic, but not the "short" one. Hence, "Everyone" has green eyes, but "everyone" isn't short.
It sounds convoluted when spelled out that way, but I think each usage of everyone is both valid and used by English speakers. When considering "everyone doesn't want to be entrepreneurs", I can mentally switch between the two cases. "Everyone doesn't want to be entrepreneurs" could incorrectly mean Person A doesn't want to be an entrepreneur AND person B doesn't want to AND person C, etc.... It could ALSO mean the word "everyone" did not take on the "wants to be an entrepreneur" characteristic BECAUSE there existed people in the group that did not have it. In that case, the statement "interpreted logically" is just what was intended.
For this reason, when I read the original statement, I didn't notice anything odd about it at all.
Both universal and particular statements are needed, and there are separate words for them. In your example, I would say "everyone has green eyes", "someone is tall", "someone isn't short", and "everyone doesn't have brown eyes". If "everyone doesn't" merely meant "someone doesn't", I would need another word that actually made that negative statement about every member of the group.
I'd like to add an interesting turn to an already interesting parallel conversation going on here; there are plenty of peculiarities between how English is spoken in the North and South of India.
Believe me, it's a cultural shock for Indians themselves, when they move to a different part of India.
Indian English is generally as valid as American English
Perhaps when I'm in India. However, if you're in an English class in Britain or America I don't believe any instructor would say "everyone doesn't want to be an entrepreneur" is valid as meaning "not every person wants to be an entrepreneur". If I start my own country on an island and declare English the official language, and say "I'm drinking water" actually means "I'm going fishing" it's only valid English for that meaning on my island.
"Indian English is generally as valid as American English
Perhaps when I'm in India."
And who says HN isn't "in India"? A webapp doesn't really "exist" at a particular point in space. (sure teh server sits wherever but it could just as well bin Singapore vs Califronia). Just somethng to think about.
When someone from Japan (say) is posting here, why should he speak "American English"? I'd say just speak English the best way you know how and if someone insists on everyone speaking American English, he can go jump off the nearest cliff. If our hypothetical Japanese poster were to use a phrase which I didn't immediately understand, I would just ask him what me meant, not berate him for not speakng the exact flavor of English most familiar to me.
I didn't say anything about which language should be spoken on HN. I think the sticking point is the word "valid", and my opinion on that is that location does have bearing. Take my island example above. Would you argue that the meaning I assigned to "I'm drinking water" as "I'm going fishing" would be valid English anywhere in the world? I think that would be absurd, because if we are to accept that then the construct of languages breaks down entirely, and people will eventually be hurling sounds at each another hoping someone discerns their intended meaning.
"Would you argue that the meaning I assigned to "I'm drinking water" as "I'm going fishing" would be valid English anywhere in the world? "
absurd example. No one anywhere in the world has such absurd correspondences.
"I think that would be absurd, because if we are to accept that then the construct of languages breaks down entirely, and people will eventually be hurling sounds at each another hoping someone discerns their intended meaning."
I don't think this is necessarily a mistake. I'm American, and I think "everyone doesn't X" has a clear meaning of "Not everyone does X". It only fails to mean that if you don't take it as a whole, but no one ever says "Everyone doesn't X" to mean "No one does X"; it always means "Not everyone does X".
There are lots of phrases in English that do not mean the same thing as the literal meanings of the words would indicate.
I agree with you. However, sometimes such phrases can be a barrier to communication across cultures, and this one especially makes it difficult to teach formal logic.
People say "You know what I mean" and that's fine when you're talking to someone from your own culture, or even just to a human. Such an audience will interpret what you say, realise it makes no sense, find an alternative, more sensible interpretation, and go with that.
Computers, and some cultures, are otherwise. Recognising such things is important, even if you don't change the way you speak.
For the record, I have to agree with RiderOfGiraffes here. The idea that "Everyone doesn't X" is the same as "Not everyone does X" makes me deeply uncomfortable. As a writer, I strive to be precise in what I mean.
As Rider proposed earlier, some idioms are compressions of logical expressions, whereas some idioms are just mistakes that people have adopted. They're not the sole province of "foreign" countries like India, though. You can find these kinds of grammatically incorrect idioms in America too ("I ain't got nothing") and undoubtedly in England as well.
However widespread "I ain't got nothing" may be, though, it is still incorrect English. Children should be taught that it's not correct English. If everyone starts speaking such loose English, we'll lose the ability to communicate clearly with each other.
I think "Everyone doesn't X" falls into the same category of incorrect idioms that may be widespread, but should be stamped out at every opportunity, except in cases where they're used for humour. If someone said, seriously, "I ain't got nothing to hide,", I would regard them with the same discomfort as if they said "Everybody doesn't need to hide stuff". Both are unfortunate manglings that need to be discouraged where possible. HN seems as good a place as any to do so.
I don't at all disagree that the statement "Everyone doesn't X" is awkward-sounding. What I really object to is the assertion that "Everyone doesn't X" actually means "No one does X".
I would actually assume that someone using it in that way isn't a fluent speaker of (American) English, while using it as a reply to "Everyone does X" (perhaps with emphasis: "No, everyone doesn't X") seems like colloquial (American) English. I can't speak for Commonwealth English. :) When used that way, as a reply, it mirrors the original statement, which seems to me to have more impact than rephrasing the reply when disagreeing.
This is where formal mathematical (and programming) logic diverge from natural language. You are right to say that (mostly) "Everyone doesn't X" will (probably) be understood.
I, however, have 20 years experience in trying to teach mathematical logic and proof, and for those who use that style of expression there seem to be additional hurdles to overcome. They don't "get" why the logical converse of "For all X, Y" isn't "For all X, not Y". It's hard work convincing some of them, because it doesn't correspond to the language they use.
Similarly, in natural language people from different locations on occasion fail to understand each other.
I'm not trying to say that what one person says is right or wrong, I'm trying to point out the potential for misunderstanding, and the natural language analysis that corresponds to formal logic. Personally, I regard logic and proof as one of the intellectual highlights of human endeavor. The fact that natural language sometimes doesn't work that way needs to be understood.
That was (one of) my point(s).
I offer for consideration the difficulties that these issues create for natural language processing. If someone says "Everyone doesn't dance" - what exactly do they mean?
I understand the point you're making, and don't disagree that the literal meaning of the phrase is inconsistent with what people typically mean by it (much like "I could care less").
I offer for consideration the difficulties that these issues create for natural language processing. If someone says "Everyone doesn't dance" - what exactly do they mean?
If you want accurate reconstruction of the intended meaning, rather than wanting to constrain natural language to having a single meaning for each statement, then you'll need both contextual and general knowledge to figure out a meaning. I would say that it's clear that someone saying "Everyone doesn't dance", assuming that that was all that was said, meant "Not everyone dances", since it's rather obvious that some people do dance. If, however, they'd said "Everyone doesn't want to die", it would no longer be clear, since it's possible for people to believe that literally no one wants to die (with appropriate excuses made for suicides and posthumous heros). But I don't think that rules of English will be able to tell you anything more about the case than that it could be meant either way; outside information will have to guide the parsed meaning.
I just wanted to add something here in addition to my earlier comment ...
To me, with my background, the statement "Everyone doesn't X" means the following:
Everyone doesn't X.
It is the case that everyone does not X.
It is the case that every person does not X.
It is the case that for every person, they do not X.
Choose a person: they do not X.
No person does X.
If I want to negate the statement "Everyone does X", perhaps keeping as much of the original phrasing as possible for effect, then I would say:
No, not everyone does X.
Natural language is what it is, and I accept that to some people the appropriate negation is, in their idiom, expressed as "Everyone doesn't X." I'm just saying that my idiom should be accepted, just as yours should, and if you use that form, you will fail to communicate effectively with me.
I'm not claiming I'm right, or you're right, or anyone is right. Linguistics research accepts that we should allow each person their idioms. I'm saying that for effective communication, the differences should be understood and allowed for.
And I won't say any more on this topic. At least, for a while.
However:
The opposite of "Everyone wants to be an entrepreneur" is "Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur" which is (logically although not in emphasis) equivalent to "Some people don't want to be entrepreneurs."To say "everyone doesn't want to be an entrepreneur" means that there are no people in the world who want to be entrepreneurs, which is clearly false, because some people do.
Again, apologies, but this is a common mistake, and it's really worth being able to recognise it when you see it, and to be able to avoid it.
Sometimes it's worth recognising it and ignoring it. Apologies if this was one of those occasions.