To me, "Everyone loves someone" could also mean that all of them love one same person, in which case "Someone is loved by everyone" means the same. I understand that the lecturer takes the first "everyone" for "each person": "Each person loves some person." With "each", you frame on the collectivity, then zoom on its individuals. With "every", you focus on the individual, then de-zoom on their collectivity. I think the first "someone" is made specific by reference to an individual through distributivity while the second "someone" is non-specific. The order in which you use the words "someone" and "everyone" changes their meaning because they are deictic, so their meaning depends on how they are specified by words around them. But I can't figure out why they can't be "object" or "subject". Maybe there's a deep philosophical meaning concealed here? From: Chris Bates <[log in to unmask]> writes: >>> I would think being a lecturer in logic he would appreciate that the order of the "for alls" and "there exists" matters a lot in the meaning. The first is: everyone (for all X) loves someone (there exists a Y such that loves(X,Y)). The second is: someone (there exists some X) is loved by everyone (such that for all X loves(X,Y)). I would say "someone" and "everyone" are still subjects and objects, but with words like "Someone" or "Everyone" which qualify it is very difficult to reorder them in any way without altering the meaning.