Hi Howard I don't think you're being pedantic ... "not all" is consistent with "some", and definitely doesn't mean "not any" I wonder what the difference is between the smoking and telephone examples ... I agree noone would get the telephone one wrong but I bet lots of people get the smoking one wrong. Jim Jim Rountree Lead Technical Writer Biosystems Division Leica Biosystems Melbourne Pty Ltd 495 Blackburn Road Mt Waverley VIC 3149 Australia telephone +61 3 9211 7400 personal +61 3 9211 7587 facsimile +61 3 9211 7590 www.leica-microsystems.com <http://www.vision-bio.com/> IMPORTANT - This email and any attachments may be confidential. Any retransmissions, dissemination or other use of these materials by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. Our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. [Any representations or opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual sender]. _____ From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard Silcock Sent: Friday, 9 October 2009 11:26 To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Not ... all An email circulated in the government department where I work says 'smoking is not permitted in all areas of the building occupied or controlled by the Department'. I think the intended meaning is that you mustn't smoke in any of those areas. Am I being pedantic if I object that you could quite accurately interpret that as meaning just that there's at least one area where smoking isn't permitted? If I said, for example, 'telephones are not installed in all offices', surely you wouldn't think I meant that none of the offices had a phone? And isn't that a parallel example? Howard