4 ms·

Everything does not need to be made part of culture wars. Why would using she be any different than he? It's like Alice and Bob of oh so many quantum thought e

by fsloth 5y ago

Everything does not need to be made part of culture wars. Why would using she be any different than he? It's like Alice and Bob of oh so many quantum thought experiments but without Bob. If there is only one protagonist you have to go 50/50.

bruce343434 5y ago
Off topic question for you: I'm an ESL speaker and I notice a trend where some people phrase it like "Everything does not need" But in my head it sounds better as "Not everything needs" Is the latter not acceptable English? Or is it something regional? In my language, it is customary to negate individual nouns, but some English speakers seem to only ever negate the verb.
- jlund-molfese 5y ago
  Sample size of 1, but as a native American English speaker, I'd use the latter phrasing of "not everything needs." The former example seems characteristic of non-native speech, but is completely understandable also.
- ambicapter 5y ago
  In my experience as a native speaker "Not everything needs" is the more common phrasing.
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  For me the difference is in emphasis, if I read it out loud "Everything does not need" emphasises everything. "Not everything needs" emphases not. It's subtle, and probably subconscious, but it has an effect.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  Logically, the two constructions have different meanings. The first is equivalent to "nothing needs", so it excludes the possibility of some but not all things needing, while the second includes that possibility. However, some people use the first incorrectly when they really mean the second. This happens often enough that you could argue the incorrect usage has now become idiomatic as well.
  - jholman 5y ago
    I'd like to agree with you about the "nothing needs..." construction being incorrect, but remember that you're never allowed to accuse Shakespeare of using English poorly. All that glisters is not gold— Often have you heard that told. Merchant of Venice, Act II Scene 7 (Also Tolkien, in the Riddle of Strider, in Fellowship. Imagine a comparison where Tolkien is the less-distinguished writer, how often does that happen.)
- fsloth 5y ago
  The discussion below is great. I think "Not everything needs" would have been better as well. One reason I'm participating in HN is to hone my written english so I appreciate it very much you pointed this out :) My native tongue (Finnish) is not in the Indo-European language group so I'm occasionally blind to these sort of patterns that are maybe more obvious to speakers of other Indo-European tongues.
- jholman 5y ago
  Fluent native English speaker here. "Not everything needs..." is definitely acceptable English, and sounds more-correct to my ears. It would also be fluent to write that sentence as "Some things do not need...". As a logician, I find the phrasing "Everything does not need..." to make me a bit queasy, and I would prefer if it were regarded as unacceptable. HOWEVER, it's not unacceptable. For example, a famous aphorism is "all that glisters is not gold" (often diluted, in recent centuries, to "all that glitters is not gold"), which is surely not intended to claim that gold never glitters. So I guess I have to tolerate hearing it the illogical way.
  - bruce343434 5y ago
    Exactly! English is the only language where I hear such illogical statements. Same goes for the inverted usage of "all but", which imo _should_ mean "everything except for" but seems to mean "almost". I wonder what causes this.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > English is the only language where I hear such illogical statements. Fear not, the exact same thing happens in other languages. Must be that you just don't hear much, for instance, Swedish: "Allt som glittrar är inte guld." (Should logically be "Inte allt som glittrar är guld", just like in English.) > Same goes for the inverted usage of "all but", which imo _should_ mean "everything except for" but seems to mean "almost". I wonder what causes this. That doesn't feel "inverted" at all to me. You just need to interpret the "all" as it must have been intended: "the whole"; "all the way there" -- then "all but" quite logically becomes "not quite the whole way there". Like, if a piece of software was almost, but not quite completely, finished ==> "the software was all (the way to) but (not quite arrived at) finished." Maybe it helps to see the similarity with this related form: Almost all the bugs were fixed, but one was left ==> "All but one of the bugs were fixed." (The bug-collective was all but vanquished. :-)

by fsloth 5y ago

bruce343434 5y ago

Off topic question for you: I'm an ESL speaker and I notice a trend where some people phrase it like "Everything does not need" But in my head it sounds better as "Not everything needs" Is the latter not acceptable English? Or is it something regional? In my language, it is customary to negate individual nouns, but some English speakers seem to only ever negate the verb.

jlund-molfese 5y ago
Sample size of 1, but as a native American English speaker, I'd use the latter phrasing of "not everything needs." The former example seems characteristic of non-native speech, but is completely understandable also.
ambicapter 5y ago
In my experience as a native speaker "Not everything needs" is the more common phrasing.
LAC-Tech 5y ago
For me the difference is in emphasis, if I read it out loud "Everything does not need" emphasises everything. "Not everything needs" emphases not. It's subtle, and probably subconscious, but it has an effect.
Silhouette 5y ago
Logically, the two constructions have different meanings. The first is equivalent to "nothing needs", so it excludes the possibility of some but not all things needing, while the second includes that possibility. However, some people use the first incorrectly when they really mean the second. This happens often enough that you could argue the incorrect usage has now become idiomatic as well.
- jholman 5y ago
  I'd like to agree with you about the "nothing needs..." construction being incorrect, but remember that you're never allowed to accuse Shakespeare of using English poorly. All that glisters is not gold— Often have you heard that told. Merchant of Venice, Act II Scene 7 (Also Tolkien, in the Riddle of Strider, in Fellowship. Imagine a comparison where Tolkien is the less-distinguished writer, how often does that happen.)
fsloth 5y ago
The discussion below is great. I think "Not everything needs" would have been better as well. One reason I'm participating in HN is to hone my written english so I appreciate it very much you pointed this out :) My native tongue (Finnish) is not in the Indo-European language group so I'm occasionally blind to these sort of patterns that are maybe more obvious to speakers of other Indo-European tongues.
jholman 5y ago
Fluent native English speaker here. "Not everything needs..." is definitely acceptable English, and sounds more-correct to my ears. It would also be fluent to write that sentence as "Some things do not need...". As a logician, I find the phrasing "Everything does not need..." to make me a bit queasy, and I would prefer if it were regarded as unacceptable. HOWEVER, it's not unacceptable. For example, a famous aphorism is "all that glisters is not gold" (often diluted, in recent centuries, to "all that glitters is not gold"), which is surely not intended to claim that gold never glitters. So I guess I have to tolerate hearing it the illogical way.
- bruce343434 5y ago
  Exactly! English is the only language where I hear such illogical statements. Same goes for the inverted usage of "all but", which imo _should_ mean "everything except for" but seems to mean "almost". I wonder what causes this.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > English is the only language where I hear such illogical statements. Fear not, the exact same thing happens in other languages. Must be that you just don't hear much, for instance, Swedish: "Allt som glittrar är inte guld." (Should logically be "Inte allt som glittrar är guld", just like in English.) > Same goes for the inverted usage of "all but", which imo _should_ mean "everything except for" but seems to mean "almost". I wonder what causes this. That doesn't feel "inverted" at all to me. You just need to interpret the "all" as it must have been intended: "the whole"; "all the way there" -- then "all but" quite logically becomes "not quite the whole way there". Like, if a piece of software was almost, but not quite completely, finished ==> "the software was all (the way to) but (not quite arrived at) finished." Maybe it helps to see the similarity with this related form: Almost all the bugs were fixed, but one was left ==> "All but one of the bugs were fixed." (The bug-collective was all but vanquished. :-)