Help me be a more accurate grammar pedant
September 10, 2014 10:23 AM Subscribe
Is there a concise term that signifies the difference between phrases such as "not all dogs are brown" and "all dogs are not brown"?
I frequently see people using the latter form, which feels incorrect to me. Specifically, I parse it as "[all dogs][are not brown]" which says that the condition of 'not brown' applies to the entire set of dogs, which is not true.
The other way around, "[not(all dogs)(are brown)]" seems correct because it's negating the idea that the entire set of dogs shares the characteristic of brown-ness.
Perhaps that's just the way I want to hear it, though. I suppose my question is two-fold:
A.) When the speaker intends to indicate that dogs come in many colors other than brown, is it incorrect to say "all dogs are not brown"?
B.) If it is incorrect, what is the name for this kind of sentence / phrase construction?
I frequently see people using the latter form, which feels incorrect to me. Specifically, I parse it as "[all dogs][are not brown]" which says that the condition of 'not brown' applies to the entire set of dogs, which is not true.
The other way around, "[not(all dogs)(are brown)]" seems correct because it's negating the idea that the entire set of dogs shares the characteristic of brown-ness.
Perhaps that's just the way I want to hear it, though. I suppose my question is two-fold:
A.) When the speaker intends to indicate that dogs come in many colors other than brown, is it incorrect to say "all dogs are not brown"?
B.) If it is incorrect, what is the name for this kind of sentence / phrase construction?
Which is to say that this is not a grammar problem, but a logical one.
posted by empath at 10:31 AM on September 10, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by empath at 10:31 AM on September 10, 2014 [8 favorites]
Is there a concise term that signifies the difference between phrases such as "not all dogs are brown" and "all dogs are not brown"?
The concise term for the second version is "wrong." Another term would be "not knowing how to say what you're trying to say."
I could rant on about people just talking without even listening to themselves, but whatever.
posted by JimN2TAW at 10:44 AM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
The concise term for the second version is "wrong." Another term would be "not knowing how to say what you're trying to say."
I could rant on about people just talking without even listening to themselves, but whatever.
posted by JimN2TAW at 10:44 AM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's a grammar question only the most fundamental level of using words to create meaning. Somebody who writes "all dogs are not brown" for "not all dogs are brown" has a problem writing simple English-language sentences.
Do you have a real world example of what you're talking about?
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:45 AM on September 10, 2014
Do you have a real world example of what you're talking about?
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:45 AM on September 10, 2014
Best answer: I would call it a misplaced modifier, because "not" should be modifying "all dogs" and instead is modifying "brown."
posted by not that girl at 10:54 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by not that girl at 10:54 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Best answer: Mmm so I think this is a misplaced modifier.
This tweet has been going around, as an example with "only":
https://twitter.com/lizfraser1/status/509425843240988674
The position of the modifier changes the meaning of the sentence. In your case, the modifier is "not" instead of "only."
e.g. YOLO, "you only live once" is incorrect because there are many things that are done exactly once -- you're only born once, you die exactly one time, etc. But everyone knows what you mean.
More confusing can be -- when describing someone cooking -- "she only sliced the carrots." So did she not slice the potatoes as well? Or did she only slice them when the recipe called for julienned carrots, which require another step after slicing?
There's also the ambiguous modifier, which leads to situations like:
"Why can't you take a photo of a man with a wooden leg?"
"Because you need a camera!"
(slapping, sighing)
There's also the ...dangling? modifier, which leads to sentences like:
"Having grabbed her raincoat, the clouds could pour on her happily"
(the clouds did not grab a raincoat -- we mean that she did -- but this sentence implies otherwise)
I might be a little off on some of these, but this was a huge problem in my high school writing.
posted by batter_my_heart at 10:55 AM on September 10, 2014
This tweet has been going around, as an example with "only":
https://twitter.com/lizfraser1/status/509425843240988674
The position of the modifier changes the meaning of the sentence. In your case, the modifier is "not" instead of "only."
e.g. YOLO, "you only live once" is incorrect because there are many things that are done exactly once -- you're only born once, you die exactly one time, etc. But everyone knows what you mean.
More confusing can be -- when describing someone cooking -- "she only sliced the carrots." So did she not slice the potatoes as well? Or did she only slice them when the recipe called for julienned carrots, which require another step after slicing?
There's also the ambiguous modifier, which leads to situations like:
"Why can't you take a photo of a man with a wooden leg?"
"Because you need a camera!"
(slapping, sighing)
There's also the ...dangling? modifier, which leads to sentences like:
"Having grabbed her raincoat, the clouds could pour on her happily"
(the clouds did not grab a raincoat -- we mean that she did -- but this sentence implies otherwise)
I might be a little off on some of these, but this was a huge problem in my high school writing.
posted by batter_my_heart at 10:55 AM on September 10, 2014
Response by poster: "Do you have a real world example of what you're talking about?"
Not handy, though I would swear I saw one here on MetaFilter within the past few days. I did not think to bookmark it, though it did end up being the seed that started this question growing in my mind.
Every time I see this construction it irks me but I've never kept a list of examples because I just assumed that I was being too formal and this was somehow permissible.
posted by komara at 10:56 AM on September 10, 2014
Not handy, though I would swear I saw one here on MetaFilter within the past few days. I did not think to bookmark it, though it did end up being the seed that started this question growing in my mind.
Every time I see this construction it irks me but I've never kept a list of examples because I just assumed that I was being too formal and this was somehow permissible.
posted by komara at 10:56 AM on September 10, 2014
I think what you're after is the scope of negative polarity items.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:59 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by iamkimiam at 10:59 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: Sticherbeast, thinking of a common example ("everyone does not") and searching Google for it gave me this hit: "Everyone does not have a novel inside them".
posted by komara at 11:01 AM on September 10, 2014
posted by komara at 11:01 AM on September 10, 2014
all that glitters is not gold
posted by lefty lucky cat at 11:02 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by lefty lucky cat at 11:02 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Do you have a real world example of what you're talking about?
MeTa: Everyone you disagree with isn't a rapist
posted by sparklemotion at 11:06 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
MeTa: Everyone you disagree with isn't a rapist
posted by sparklemotion at 11:06 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
For another take, these (all, some, none) are logical quantifiers, whose scope (together with the operators like NOT) can be analyzed. Ah, I see others are pointing in the same general direction.
posted by lathrop at 11:10 AM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by lathrop at 11:10 AM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Not all dogs are brown." is logically equivalent to "There is a dog which is not brown.", which is a type of statement called an existential quantification. "All dogs are not brown" is a universal quantification.
So: A) You're right, the statements are not equivalent. B) A concise(-ish) way of summarizing the mistake would be "The negation of a universal quantification is not another universal quantification." (although that doesn't really help you if you don't already have a firm grasp of what's going on.), or maybe "misplaced negation".
posted by tecg at 11:27 AM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
So: A) You're right, the statements are not equivalent. B) A concise(-ish) way of summarizing the mistake would be "The negation of a universal quantification is not another universal quantification." (although that doesn't really help you if you don't already have a firm grasp of what's going on.), or maybe "misplaced negation".
posted by tecg at 11:27 AM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's interesting that both of the real world examples use the word "everyone".
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:38 AM on September 10, 2014
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:38 AM on September 10, 2014
Yeah but we're talking about English, not predicate logic. In English, the statements are equivalent in meaning, but my guess is you wouldn't introduce new information about dog color using "all dogs are not brown," but would say it if someone had just said "dogs are brown" and you wished to emphasize that that statement wasn't true.
So not incorrect, just used in more restricted contexts.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 11:38 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
So not incorrect, just used in more restricted contexts.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 11:38 AM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Somebody who writes "all dogs are not brown" for "not all dogs are brown" has a problem writing simple English-language sentences.
Not at all. "All men are not free." Perfectly intelligible and grammatically correct. On the other hand, someone who wrote "all dogs are not brown" to express the proposition that "no dogs are brown" (as the OP claims to parse it) would be someone who had a problem writing English sentences. I can't think of a single example of using the "all x are not y" construction to express "no x are y" that doesn't sound silly. You don't say, "All passenger pigeons are not alive," you say "no passenger pigeons are alive."
posted by bricoleur at 12:45 PM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Not at all. "All men are not free." Perfectly intelligible and grammatically correct. On the other hand, someone who wrote "all dogs are not brown" to express the proposition that "no dogs are brown" (as the OP claims to parse it) would be someone who had a problem writing English sentences. I can't think of a single example of using the "all x are not y" construction to express "no x are y" that doesn't sound silly. You don't say, "All passenger pigeons are not alive," you say "no passenger pigeons are alive."
posted by bricoleur at 12:45 PM on September 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
> The concise term for the second version is "wrong." Another term would be "not knowing how to say what you're trying to say."
This is nonsense, and just the kind of nonsense I've spent my life trying to combat. Language is not a branch of logic and people do not use language primarily to convey logical propositions, however much some people might wish it were so. If you want to spend your life being agitated because certain forms of speech do not logically parse the way you want them to, that's your business, but I strongly suggest you get used to the idea of interpreting sentences the way they are obviously intended rather than blaming the speaker or writer for not obeying the dictates of your version of logic. Otherwise you go down the road of constantly pointing out that people are using literally and beg the question "incorrectly" and chastising grocery stores over misplaced apostrophes, and you don't want to be That Guy, do you?
posted by languagehat at 12:46 PM on September 10, 2014 [18 favorites]
This is nonsense, and just the kind of nonsense I've spent my life trying to combat. Language is not a branch of logic and people do not use language primarily to convey logical propositions, however much some people might wish it were so. If you want to spend your life being agitated because certain forms of speech do not logically parse the way you want them to, that's your business, but I strongly suggest you get used to the idea of interpreting sentences the way they are obviously intended rather than blaming the speaker or writer for not obeying the dictates of your version of logic. Otherwise you go down the road of constantly pointing out that people are using literally and beg the question "incorrectly" and chastising grocery stores over misplaced apostrophes, and you don't want to be That Guy, do you?
posted by languagehat at 12:46 PM on September 10, 2014 [18 favorites]
This is nonsense, and just the kind of nonsense I've spent my life trying to combat. Language is not a branch of logic and people do not use language primarily to convey logical propositions, however much some people might wish it were so.
All of that is true, but sentences of that particular form (All A are B, etc..), stripped of conversational context, are very much from formal logic, and have pretty specific interpretations. That said, I'd wager that most people are not aware of them and don't necessarily intend or interpret them that way.
posted by empath at 1:49 PM on September 10, 2014
All of that is true, but sentences of that particular form (All A are B, etc..), stripped of conversational context, are very much from formal logic, and have pretty specific interpretations. That said, I'd wager that most people are not aware of them and don't necessarily intend or interpret them that way.
posted by empath at 1:49 PM on September 10, 2014
By which I mean, in casual conversation it doesn't make a difference, but if you're trying to make a logical argument, it does.
posted by empath at 1:50 PM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 1:50 PM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think what happens sometimes is that prescriptivists tend to assume that grammatical always means perfectly clear and logical, which it doesn't. Something can be nonsensical or ambiguous and still be perfectly grammatical.
That said, there does often seem to be a tonal differentiation between the universal and existential versions of quantifiers. "All the ladies don't love Cool James," for example, could mean either "not all ladies love Cool James" or "none of the ladies love Cool James."
But at least sometimes, the difference is conveyed through emphasis. If the word "all" is emphasized, I'm pretty sure it means "not all ladies," but if it's not, I think it could mean either. That emphasis is obviously lost in written language.
But more often, the meaning comes across contextually. So in that case, we know it means "None of the ladies love Cool James" because we know who LL Cool J is and we know he's unlovable.
posted by ernielundquist at 1:54 PM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
That said, there does often seem to be a tonal differentiation between the universal and existential versions of quantifiers. "All the ladies don't love Cool James," for example, could mean either "not all ladies love Cool James" or "none of the ladies love Cool James."
But at least sometimes, the difference is conveyed through emphasis. If the word "all" is emphasized, I'm pretty sure it means "not all ladies," but if it's not, I think it could mean either. That emphasis is obviously lost in written language.
But more often, the meaning comes across contextually. So in that case, we know it means "None of the ladies love Cool James" because we know who LL Cool J is and we know he's unlovable.
posted by ernielundquist at 1:54 PM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
"All men are not free." Perfectly intelligible and grammatically correct.
No, not perfectly intelligible.
The speaker could be arguing philosophically that everybody in the world is unfree. That's the obvious meaning of this sentence.
On the other hand, the speaker could be trying to point out that while some people are free, others are unfree. That's the problematic sentence structure being discussed in this thread. If that's what the speaker meant, he didn't say it clearly.
Clarity could be achieved easily by not using this type of sentence. The speaker could say that "no one in the world is free," or he could say that "there are people in the world who are not free." A simple choice. Either option would be more clear than the problematic type of sentence being discussed here.
posted by JimN2TAW at 2:22 PM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, not perfectly intelligible.
The speaker could be arguing philosophically that everybody in the world is unfree. That's the obvious meaning of this sentence.
On the other hand, the speaker could be trying to point out that while some people are free, others are unfree. That's the problematic sentence structure being discussed in this thread. If that's what the speaker meant, he didn't say it clearly.
Clarity could be achieved easily by not using this type of sentence. The speaker could say that "no one in the world is free," or he could say that "there are people in the world who are not free." A simple choice. Either option would be more clear than the problematic type of sentence being discussed here.
posted by JimN2TAW at 2:22 PM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
beg the question "incorrectly"
My poor heart. Language certainly changes and adapts, but I suggest we at least have a socially approved period of mourning for terms that unavoidably get neutered of their original meaning when other unconventional uses eventually take over and become the norm. I'll be "that guy" who is over in the corner crying as I read my philosophy texts. My only consolation will probably be that it was nigh impossible getting a broader use of the term outside of certain circles anyway, and those who still refer to the original meaning will still get to use it, but now with the knowledge that there's really no hope at all any more for a broader adoption of the term.
posted by SpacemanStix at 4:36 PM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
My poor heart. Language certainly changes and adapts, but I suggest we at least have a socially approved period of mourning for terms that unavoidably get neutered of their original meaning when other unconventional uses eventually take over and become the norm. I'll be "that guy" who is over in the corner crying as I read my philosophy texts. My only consolation will probably be that it was nigh impossible getting a broader use of the term outside of certain circles anyway, and those who still refer to the original meaning will still get to use it, but now with the knowledge that there's really no hope at all any more for a broader adoption of the term.
posted by SpacemanStix at 4:36 PM on September 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
I strongly suggest you get used to the idea of interpreting sentences the way they are obviously intended
Problem comes when what is intended is not obvious. Grammar aside, the responsibility for clarity falls entirely on the speaker or writer. Loss of clarity happens more often (though not entirely) when people step outside formal grammar.
Which is not to say that playing fast and loose with grammar should be streng verboten - it can be interesting, entertaining, and effective. But understand that you're taking on an added risk with your audience in going there.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:19 PM on September 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Problem comes when what is intended is not obvious. Grammar aside, the responsibility for clarity falls entirely on the speaker or writer. Loss of clarity happens more often (though not entirely) when people step outside formal grammar.
Which is not to say that playing fast and loose with grammar should be streng verboten - it can be interesting, entertaining, and effective. But understand that you're taking on an added risk with your audience in going there.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:19 PM on September 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
One thing it could be called is "English sentences should follow the rules of formal logic." See discussion here. This is a somewhat recent and controversial idea, because English grammar and formal logic are two different things and they each follow their own particular, distinct rules. Note discussion of negation in different languages here, and how much the rules vary from language to language (and most of them vary from the negation rules of formal logic in various ways).
There is some discussion here under "English Grammar: Negation", the word "negation" is another possibly helpful term.
One point made in the article about Negation in English Grammar is that "not" after a verb form of "to be" is the typical position in the sentence to negate the verb. That means that your example "all dogs are not brown" can be parsed another way: "[All dogs] [are not] brown". This places "all dogs are not brown" as the simple negation of the sentence "all dogs are brown"--that is it means: "The sentence 'all dogs are brown' is false." Because the 'are not' construction is used so commonly to mean exactly this in English, English speakers are not going to have any problem understanding the gist of this idea as the most probable meaning intended by this sentence.
By contrast, your parsing of the sentence, as "[all dogs] are [not brown]" would normally be expressed as something like "all dogs are a different color than brown". If you were having some kind of technical discussion about brown-ness vs not-brown-ness you could probably write something like "all dogs are not-brown".
This brings up another word that describes the situation, which is "ambiguous". "Not all dogs are brown" is unambiguous whereas "all dogs are not brown" shimmers in meaning somewhere between "the statement 'all dogs are brown' is false" and "all dogs are a different color than brown." This is not good!
Courses in logic often try to systematically teach how to negate various statements - example. Another potentially useful phrase is "incorrect placement of negatives".
Also note the discussion of "positive and negative polarity items" here (p. 187), which touches on the issue of how you negate sentences that include those items.
posted by flug at 10:25 PM on September 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
There is some discussion here under "English Grammar: Negation", the word "negation" is another possibly helpful term.
One point made in the article about Negation in English Grammar is that "not" after a verb form of "to be" is the typical position in the sentence to negate the verb. That means that your example "all dogs are not brown" can be parsed another way: "[All dogs] [are not] brown". This places "all dogs are not brown" as the simple negation of the sentence "all dogs are brown"--that is it means: "The sentence 'all dogs are brown' is false." Because the 'are not' construction is used so commonly to mean exactly this in English, English speakers are not going to have any problem understanding the gist of this idea as the most probable meaning intended by this sentence.
By contrast, your parsing of the sentence, as "[all dogs] are [not brown]" would normally be expressed as something like "all dogs are a different color than brown". If you were having some kind of technical discussion about brown-ness vs not-brown-ness you could probably write something like "all dogs are not-brown".
This brings up another word that describes the situation, which is "ambiguous". "Not all dogs are brown" is unambiguous whereas "all dogs are not brown" shimmers in meaning somewhere between "the statement 'all dogs are brown' is false" and "all dogs are a different color than brown." This is not good!
Courses in logic often try to systematically teach how to negate various statements - example. Another potentially useful phrase is "incorrect placement of negatives".
Also note the discussion of "positive and negative polarity items" here (p. 187), which touches on the issue of how you negate sentences that include those items.
posted by flug at 10:25 PM on September 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Note this study on negation that touches on many related issues, including the cognitive overhead of negation. (Humans seem to do OK with simple negation but when you get into double and triple negatives they get very confused very fast.)
posted by flug at 10:35 PM on September 10, 2014
posted by flug at 10:35 PM on September 10, 2014
The standard analysis for such examples is as follows.
All dogs starts out lower in the sentential structure than the negation, roughly as follows:
not [all dogs are brown]
It subsequently moves to the canonical subject position, creating the observable structure:
all dogs [not [ __ brown]]
(never mind the are). Semantically, the sentence can then be interpreted according to either of the 2 structures. In the 1st structure, all dogs is interpreted in the scope of negation, resulting in "it is not the case that every dog is brown". According to the 2nd structure, all dogs gets wide scope over negation, resulting in "for every dog, it is not the case that it is brown". The 1st option is called "reconstruction". Because reconstruction is optional, both interpretations are available, so that the sentence is ambiguous.
Reconstruction does not apply with equal ease to all types of quantified noun phrases, which may explain why the OP finds the reconstructed reading a bit odd. The ambiguity is easier to detect in:
someone always objects
which easily allows the reconstructed reading "it is always the case that someone objects".
The paradigmatic example is "all that glitters is not gold", discussion of which goes back at least to 1972. A nice example is Larry Horn's Thank heaven, all scholars are not like this.
We are not dealing here with the scope of NPI's by the way: all dogs is not an NPI.
posted by bleston hamilton station at 1:25 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
All dogs starts out lower in the sentential structure than the negation, roughly as follows:
not [all dogs are brown]
It subsequently moves to the canonical subject position, creating the observable structure:
all dogs [not [ __ brown]]
(never mind the are). Semantically, the sentence can then be interpreted according to either of the 2 structures. In the 1st structure, all dogs is interpreted in the scope of negation, resulting in "it is not the case that every dog is brown". According to the 2nd structure, all dogs gets wide scope over negation, resulting in "for every dog, it is not the case that it is brown". The 1st option is called "reconstruction". Because reconstruction is optional, both interpretations are available, so that the sentence is ambiguous.
Reconstruction does not apply with equal ease to all types of quantified noun phrases, which may explain why the OP finds the reconstructed reading a bit odd. The ambiguity is easier to detect in:
someone always objects
which easily allows the reconstructed reading "it is always the case that someone objects".
The paradigmatic example is "all that glitters is not gold", discussion of which goes back at least to 1972. A nice example is Larry Horn's Thank heaven, all scholars are not like this.
We are not dealing here with the scope of NPI's by the way: all dogs is not an NPI.
posted by bleston hamilton station at 1:25 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
This brings up another word that describes the situation, which is "ambiguous". "Not all dogs are brown" is unambiguous whereas "all dogs are not brown" shimmers in meaning somewhere between "the statement 'all dogs are brown' is false" and "all dogs are a different color than brown." This is not good!
One thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that A) ambiguity in spoken english is okay and B) one should assume that the person you're talking to is not a moron. Nobody would say "all dogs are not brown" and mean that there are no brown dogs, which everyone over the age of 18 months knows isn't true. Same deal with "all that glitters is not gold".
posted by empath at 6:50 AM on September 11, 2014
One thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that A) ambiguity in spoken english is okay and B) one should assume that the person you're talking to is not a moron. Nobody would say "all dogs are not brown" and mean that there are no brown dogs, which everyone over the age of 18 months knows isn't true. Same deal with "all that glitters is not gold".
posted by empath at 6:50 AM on September 11, 2014
Response by poster: empath et al: I chose the "all dogs are not brown" to try to simplify my original question but it appears to have complicated things. You're correct in saying that in spoken English the phrase "all dogs are not brown" would be fairly unambiguous. My real-life examples come from work emails like "all the spreadsheets are not reviewed" - does that mean none have been reviewed? Or some have, but the review process is not quite finished?
Regardless, I think for the purposes of any future conversation I might need to have about it the simplest answer is "misplaced modifier" - makes it easy to explain to the other party why it is that their statement is unintentionally ambiguous without going into long discussions about logic and semantics.
languagehat, my post title was intended to be humorous, and I do understand what you're saying about being That Guy and I know you weren't chastising me directly. However, I also have a valid need to clear up potential misunderstandings in the workplace (see: spreadsheet example above) so ... you know, I'm gonna use the information given in these answers. But I'm using them for Good, not Evil.
posted by komara at 7:05 AM on September 11, 2014
Regardless, I think for the purposes of any future conversation I might need to have about it the simplest answer is "misplaced modifier" - makes it easy to explain to the other party why it is that their statement is unintentionally ambiguous without going into long discussions about logic and semantics.
languagehat, my post title was intended to be humorous, and I do understand what you're saying about being That Guy and I know you weren't chastising me directly. However, I also have a valid need to clear up potential misunderstandings in the workplace (see: spreadsheet example above) so ... you know, I'm gonna use the information given in these answers. But I'm using them for Good, not Evil.
posted by komara at 7:05 AM on September 11, 2014
> However, I also have a valid need to clear up potential misunderstandings in the workplace (see: spreadsheet example above) so ... you know, I'm gonna use the information given in these answers. But I'm using them for Good, not Evil.
Excellent, I approve! I'm sorry if it sounded as if I might be chastising you—I wasn't at all. I was chastising the "language that doesn't parse logically is bad" crowd.
posted by languagehat at 7:12 AM on September 11, 2014
Excellent, I approve! I'm sorry if it sounded as if I might be chastising you—I wasn't at all. I was chastising the "language that doesn't parse logically is bad" crowd.
posted by languagehat at 7:12 AM on September 11, 2014
My real-life examples come from work emails like "all the spreadsheets are not reviewed" - does that mean none have been reviewed? Or some have, but the review process is not quite finished?
My two cents, then: the issue here isn't grammar, but rather clear communication. At best, this sentence is ambiguous, and therefore useless to you at work. Why is it ambiguous? Because the statement produces several different meanings. Whether it's grammatically correct or not is another issue entirely.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:14 AM on September 11, 2014
My two cents, then: the issue here isn't grammar, but rather clear communication. At best, this sentence is ambiguous, and therefore useless to you at work. Why is it ambiguous? Because the statement produces several different meanings. Whether it's grammatically correct or not is another issue entirely.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:14 AM on September 11, 2014
"all the spreadsheets are not reviewed" - does that mean none have been reviewed? Or some have, but the review process is not quite finished?
Yes, it seems like the way to handle this in a work context would be a reply email, quick phone call, or conversation something like this:
Also, this brings up to me the truly essential problem. It's not that there is ambiguity in this statement between potential meanings "Not one single spreadsheet has been reviewed" and "Some of the spreadsheets remain unreviewed."
Rather, it's that to do your job you need truly specific information, along the lines of "32 spreadsheets remain to be reviewed and based on our previous experience with this work that will take a team of 4 people 6.5 hours to complete" or "Our project timeline requires 78 spreadsheets to be reviewed by Tuesday at 5pm. 24 have been reviewed and 54 remain to be reviewed."
In short, the writer is just straight up being vague when you need actual specifics to do your part of the job. So, ask for the specifics and if you want to remind people about something, remind them to be specific and provide needed details when discussing project requirements, timelines, and specific work remaining to be done.
posted by flug at 9:39 AM on September 11, 2014
Yes, it seems like the way to handle this in a work context would be a reply email, quick phone call, or conversation something like this:
> . . . all the spreadsheets are not reviewed . . .Human communication is ambiguous all the time. Part of being able to work with other people well is the ability to continue that communication to clarify what you need to know, and also continue to have a good working relationship with everyone involved. Probably pointing out mistakes or ambiguity in a work email from a grammar/logic perspective (like a 6th grade English teacher) is not really going to help with that.
Kim,
I just wanted to clarify this so that we can plan work for the next couple of days. We need the details so our team can plan our upcoming weeks' workload. Have none of the spreadsheets been reviewed, or have some of them been reviewed and some remain to be reviewed?
Can you tell us how many spreadsheets remain to be reviewed [and/or how many hours work remain on this project, or whatever other specific piece of information you need to know about this situation] so that we can plan to get this done by next Tuesday to meet the project deadline?
Thanks much,
Komara
Also, this brings up to me the truly essential problem. It's not that there is ambiguity in this statement between potential meanings "Not one single spreadsheet has been reviewed" and "Some of the spreadsheets remain unreviewed."
Rather, it's that to do your job you need truly specific information, along the lines of "32 spreadsheets remain to be reviewed and based on our previous experience with this work that will take a team of 4 people 6.5 hours to complete" or "Our project timeline requires 78 spreadsheets to be reviewed by Tuesday at 5pm. 24 have been reviewed and 54 remain to be reviewed."
In short, the writer is just straight up being vague when you need actual specifics to do your part of the job. So, ask for the specifics and if you want to remind people about something, remind them to be specific and provide needed details when discussing project requirements, timelines, and specific work remaining to be done.
posted by flug at 9:39 AM on September 11, 2014
Response by poster: flug: I appreciate your input, but I understand my situation and the personalities of the individuals involved, and I asked my question because of this understanding, and other factors which are not disclosed. I don't wish for this to turn into a conversation about workplace communication methods or practices.
posted by komara at 10:26 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by komara at 10:26 AM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older Recommendations for bar or lounge in... | Ideas for literary or science knuckle tats for... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Not all A are B is equivalent to Some A are Not B, which is a 'particular negative'. All A are Not B is equivalent to No A are B, and that's a 'universal negative'.
posted by empath at 10:28 AM on September 10, 2014 [2 favorites]