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."
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.