Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A phrase commonly heard in English (at least informal English) is something like the following:

Well, this car is good, but all cars are not made equal!

This would be commonly understood by most English speakers to mean the following sentence, which is what I'd use:

Well, this car is good, but not all cars are made equal!

Isn't the first sentence ambiguous? It could mean what most English speakers would take it to mean, but it could also mean (and I'd argue this is what is should mean):

Well, this car is good, but every single car is made differently!

Another of the many variants on this form of words is where it is identified that not all members of a class are the same as a specific member, for example:

This might be bitter, but all fruits are not lemons!

Again I'd take this to mean:

This might be bitter, but not all fruits are lemons!

And again I'd say that the first phrase is in this case not only ambiguous, but plain wrong. It should literally mean:

This might be bitter, but NO fruits are lemons!

When did this curious form of words start to be used, and by whom? And, are my literal meanings correct, or is there a grammatical sense in which, for example, the latter phrase could mean something other than "NO fruits are lemons" when interpreted strictly?

share|improve this question
1  
Wasn't there a question like this just a day or two ago? Saying "All is not..." instead of "Not all is..." –  GEdgar Sep 18 '11 at 14:00
    
@GEdgar Yes, there are several questions that are similar, particularly english.stackexchange.com/questions/6251/… –  Feral Oink Sep 21 '11 at 19:29
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 0 down vote accepted

The phrase "All X are not made equal" (where 'made' can be substituted for any method of creation) derives from the phrase "All men are not created equal", a phrase used to contrast the popular adage "All men are created equal", most famously used in the US Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

The sentiment it carries is that some type of a given thing are inherently better than another, due to some aspect of how they were created (born of a 'better race' or from a 'better manufacturer'), e.g. "Not all mean are created equal" for eugenics, "Not all cars are created equal" might be used to suggest one brand is inherently better than another, etc.

Being that it is part of the US Declaration of Independence, US citizens are far more likely to recognise that phrase than others, though it is a fairly well known phrase.

share|improve this answer
    
I'd think the reference to Orwell's "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" is more relevant than the Declaration of Independence: no doubt cultures differ. –  TimLymington Nov 28 '11 at 11:17
add comment

I think OP's first example is probably a misuse of the phrase being discussed. I can only imagine it being said by someone who has doubts about whether to actually own a car at all. A more commonly-applicable version with minimal changes is...

Well your Ford is good, but not all Fords are [made] equal.

The word "made" isn't necessarily part of this "stock phrase". In this particular case it can be included, because cars are manufactured. But that wouldn't be the case in, for example,

Well, your rottweiler may be safe around babies, but not all dogs are equal.

I see no justification at all for OP's assertion that "every X is different to every other X" is a logical corollary to "not all X are equal". This is simply incorrect. The meaning of the expression is at least some X are not the same as the others (or ...not the same as the one just mentioned).

Effectively, "not all X are equal" is a stock phrase used to point out that just because one particular X has some characteristic, it doesn't automatically follow that all X's have it. Usually with the strong implication that a significant number of X's don't have that characteristic. So my first example might be said by someone who's just been advised to buy a Ford, by a friend who cites his own good Ford as justification for the advice. The speaker is simply pointing out that this justification is based on faulty reasoning of a type Wikipedia calls hasty generalisation .

share|improve this answer
    
Hmm. I don't understand the downvote with no explanation, particularly when as yet there's no alternative answer that the downvoter might prefer. –  FumbleFingers Sep 19 '11 at 3:55
add comment

In the latter part of the phrase in question, three distinct wordings are possible: (1) "not all cars are made equal", (2) "all cars are not made equal", and (3) "all cars are made not equal". The respective meanings seem to be (1) "some cars are made differently", (2) unclear, and (3) "every car is made differently".

I regard (2) as unclear because we are told that cars are "not made equal", that is, we are told something they are not, but we are not told what they are. I find it difficult to determine the exact meaning of "all cars are not made equal" and regard it as ambiguous. For further discussion of the problem see wikipedia re excluded middle: "Many modern logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown."

However, one of the answers to the recent question GEdgar refers to may be relevant. In that question the process of "negative raising (shifted or transferred negation)"](http://www.englishcorner.vacau.com/grammar/rules/raising.html) is mentioned, in terms of English-speaking habits: "When we express negative ideas with verbs like think, believe, etc., we prefer to make the first verb negative instead of the second. We shift or transfer the negative from the second verb to the first." By a similar process, many English-speakers will fail to distinguish between (1) and (2), but certainly would distinguish between (2) and (3).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.