English Grammar Quesion?

Question

I recently saw a sign that said, "all pets are not allowed in this store." I argued that the sign actually could be taken to mean that some pets are and some pets are not allowed in the store. The people I argued with laughed at me. Anyone agree or disagree with me? And why?

Answer 1

There's a lot of confusion about this form of expression. Especially when used in WRITING (as a sign), where there's no one available to emphasize the words they wish to, it is ambiguous.

The problem is that, despite what people think, there is no hard and fast rule about whether the negative 'not' in these cases applies just to the VERB or to the quantifier "All".

1) to the VERB -- then "not allowed" is the equivalent of "disallowed". In this case (often thought the most 'logical') the sentence would mean,
"All pets are disallowed" OR, to use the more usual form, "NO pets (are) allowed!"

This is cleary what the sign-writer intended.

2) to the quantifier -- then it would mean the same as "Not all pets are allowed", which is a brief way of saying "Some pets are allowed, but some are not."

Now if you used this sentence in conversation it would probably be clear what you meant. Suppose someone says "All pets are allowed!" But you know that is not the case, because some pets are NOT allowed. It would be perfectly understandable for you to respond to their statement by saying "All pets are NOT allowed!" That is, the point they were making is mistaken. Because of the context and the way you emphasized it in speaking, the meaning would be clear.

Many insist that one should ALWAYS use the form "Not all . . . " to make this point. But that is not necessarily so. Consider the common expression "All is well." If would not be at all unusual for someone to make the point that *this is NOT the case* by saying, "All is NOT well!" In fact, people are probably MORE likely to say it this say --and it may make the point more forcefully -- than to say "Not all is well."

In fact, this construction has been used for a long time with the second meaning, most famously in the form of a line from Shakespeare that comes down to us as "All that glitters is not gold." Logic nuts might fuss that this "must" mean "Nothing that glitters is gold", but in fact, the point is absolutely clear in the context AND because the listener already KNOWS that gold DOES glitter.

This last point is important. Sometimes a construction of this sort, which is not "logically" the most precise (but langauge does not always work that way!!) may be appropriate and easy to understand BECAUSE of what the listener (or everyone!) already knows. When the listener cannot be assumed to know this and cannot hear you speak the words, it is best to use the more logically precise form, that cannot be misunderstood.

I would recommend that, for more cases, "No pets (are) allowed" or "Not all pets are allowed" are advisable, esp. for a sign. And all the more since, unlike gold, it is NOT obvious that some pets are allowed

(Incidentally, though I am big on using careful logic in language, I do NOT believe that language is SIMPLY about logic. It is much MORE than that. Hence, the objection that the "double negative", which is used in MANY languages for EMPHASIS, is unacceptable in formal English because it is "illogical" is a bit silly. Does ANYONE misunderstand the point of "I don't see nothing!" ?)

Answer 2

Of course they laughed. If the sign had wanted to say that some pets were not allowed in the store, it would have said "Some pets are not allowed in this store". Seems quite clear to me. Even clearer though would have been "No pets are allowed in this store".

Was it a pet shop, by the way?

Answer 3

The sign should read "all pets are banned from this store" or "no pets are allowed in this store."

As it is written, the intended meaning is that "all pets in the world are not allowed" so that any portion is also part of the whole set that are collectively banned.

If you compare it with a sentence in logic,
it would be the equivalent of saying
"all cats are not dogs" which is true for all cats, and also true for some cats or any one cat also not being dogs.

I think you are confusing it with the condition that "not all pets are allowed in the store" which might allow some. Or "all pets are not allowed together" which might allow some individually.

But given the social context it is clear that the meaning is to ban all pets. Since this is commonly understood to be the meaning, that is why you were not taken seriously for trying to read more into it otherwise.

Answer 4

Actually, you are right - the sign is grammatically incorrect. It's a problem because they've used a negative instruction rather than an explicit instruction, like "Leave all of your damn pets outside!!"

"All pets are not allowed in this store." is the same as "This store will not allow all pets"

So either some species are never allowed inside or there's limited room and all four of my dogs & my pet pig can't fit inside. But some of my pet dogs should be OK.

Answer 5

Since the sign specifies that "pets" are not allowed this could include people. By which, an animal such as a sheep herding dog, seeing eye dog, of course, show horse or any other animal that is used for work or sale, that is not technically a "pet" could certainly be taken to be allowed in the store.

It is an obvious error but difficult to pin point why.

You want people say what they mean in the written language and probably in the spoken as well. You do not suffer fools gladly.

The She Beast

Answer 6

The operative word is 'all', which denotes every possible classification of pet. So, no - even by a twist of inference, some pets are not exempt. The grammar of the sign, though, is just plain awful. Less is more: "No pets allowed."

And even though the sentence may initially appear ambiguous to some, just break it down: [All pets] [are not allowed] [in this store]. There's more than enough information there to satisfy Natural Language Processing algorithms - and they typically fall over at the first hint of ambiguity.

Answer 7

I disagree with you. All pets...it is a conclusive statement...it tells me that no pets of any kind are allowed in that store. But what if you were walking and you found a stray....and you took it into the store????....Would that count, too? After all it is a stray animal and not a pet...right?
It would have probably been better if the sign said "NO pets of any kind are allowed in this store"

Answer 8

You are technically correct - "all pets are not allowed" could imply "but some pets might be" - but in idiomatic English most people would take that to mean "no pets of any description are allowed". It's a sign not a legal document, and should be taken in context.

Answer 9

That's a very weird, ambiguous sentence. It could be interpreted the way you read it. But if I were going to say that, I would probably say something like "Not all pets are allowed in the store but a few are." And if I didn't want any pets in the store I would say, "No pets allowed in the store." If I wanted to say something starting with "All" I might say "All pets are forbidden to enter the store." Interesting that "All are forbidden" is not ambiguous but "All are not allowed" is ambiguous.

Answer 10

Yes you are correct ... grammatically - but logically, some is a subset of all - so if all are not allowed, the some would also not be allowed - its the way you see it.

The sign should actually have read " No pets are allowed in this store" or simply "Pets not allowed in this store"