>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 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.