3 ms·

> you don't always know what you're saying > You never know what you're saying. (emphasis added) There we go. You clarified why I felt this was off -- it's m

• ColinWright 12y ago
  It appears to me that you're saying that > you don't *always* know what you're saying is logically the same as: > You *never* know what you're saying. That's not at all how I read it. To say: > you don't *always* know what you're saying is to say: > There are some occasions when you > don't know what you're saying. We can see that in mathematical logic wherein moving a negation across a "For all" changes it to a "There exists", and vice versa. In this case the natural language formulation matches the mathematical logic one. In particular, "never" is not the negation of "always." So that's exactly what you agreed with when you said: > When I'm doing a small quick exercise like > shown, I might say something inadvertently. That shows that there are times when you don't know what you're saying, confirming that you don't always know what you're saying. So it still seems to me like you are confirming the title, not refuting it.