But it's not the only one in every case.
The FAQ doesn't say anything about this. In English, sentences containing both a negative and a quantifier, or a negative and a modal, or a modal and a quantifier are ambiguous, unless some care is taken in phrasing them. If so, it is really terrible: Post as a guest Name.
I presume they mean: Shouldn't "Everything is not" and "Not everything is" be equivalent? Hot Network Questions.
In fact, Ngrams shows that "everything is not" is slowly losing in popularity to "not everything is". Those are logical annotations, by the way, not semantic ones.
Everything is not. Hehe, I guess I took your advice.
Especially when used with because ; consider He doesn't hurt you because he likes you -- does it mean he likes you and therefore he doesn't hurt you, or does it mean that the fact he likes you is not the reason for his hurting you? Unfortunately for logicians, language is not always based on logic.
If as here there is both a universal quantifier everything and a negative particle not , then there will normally be two meanings: It could mean either. I prefer it is full negation, i. Even Shakespeare had his characters use "all is not" in this way: Peter Shor Peter Shor 62. All that glisters is not gold; Often have you heard that told: Looking in Google Ngrams, people have been using the phrase "everything is not" for the last 400 years.