Print

Print


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.