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 not made 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. In Wikipedia, the law of excluded middle is rejected by the logic of negation and in practice, as “no value”. We want to avoid misunderstanding. For further discussion of the problem see Wikipedia re excluded middle. Is there still a third possibility? ”

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)” https://www.englishcorner.vacau.com/rd/raising.php?admg:&id=?. What is our English pronunciation when we express negative ideas with verbs like think, believe, etc.? , we prefer making the first verb negative instead of the second. We transfer the positive from the second verb to the first verb. We shift and transfer this verb to the first verb without the negative being retained by this second verb. As a method of learning, many English-speakers will fail to distinguish between (1) and (2), but certainly would distinguish between (2) and (3).

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 not made 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. In Wikipedia, the law of excluded middle is rejected by the logic of negation and in practice, as “no value”. We want to avoid misunderstanding. For further discussion of the problem see Wikipedia re excluded middle. Is there still a third possibility? ”

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)” https://www.englishcorner.vacau.com/rd/raising.php?admg:&id=?. What is our English pronunciation when we express negative ideas with verbs like think, believe, etc.? , we prefer making the first verb negative instead of the second. We transfer the positive from the second verb to the first verb. We shift and transfer this verb to the first verb without the negative being retained by this second verb. As a method of learning, many English-speakers will fail to distinguish between (1) and (2), but certainly would distinguish between (2) and (3).

Is solecism, a rather general term that encompasses grammar mistakes, a possibility? What is infelicity? A few dozen quite-specific kinds of language errors (mostly stylistic rather than grammatical) are explained in BYU’s Stylistic Vices webpage, for example pleonasm ” usage of more words than necessary semantically. Rhetorical repetition that is grammatically superfluous”, sometimes called acyrologia, or “An incorrect use of words, especially the use of words that sound similar but are far in meaning from the speaker’s intentions” (like malapropism, eggcorns, etc). More.An incorrect use of words.

For verbs, consider misspeak (“to fail to pronounce, utter, or speak correctly”.). Wikipedia says Misspeaking is a word

used to describe the act of speaking “incorrectly, unclearly, or misleadingly”, to “fail to convey the meaning one intends by one’s words” Also consider the form

to err grammatically. Verb err means to make any kind of mistake that would result in a violation of strict

grammar.

Is solecism, a rather general term that encompasses grammar mistakes, a possibility? What is infelicity? A few dozen quite-specific kinds of language errors (mostly stylistic rather than grammatical) are explained in BYU’s Stylistic Vices webpage, for example pleonasm ” usage of more words than necessary semantically. Rhetorical repetition that is grammatically superfluous”, sometimes called acyrologia, or “An incorrect use of words, especially the use of words that sound similar but are far in meaning from the speaker’s intentions” (like malapropism, eggcorns, etc). More.An incorrect use of words.

For verbs, consider misspeak (“to fail to pronounce, utter, or speak correctly”.). Wikipedia says Misspeaking is a word

used to describe the act of speaking “incorrectly, unclearly, or misleadingly”, to “fail to convey the meaning one intends by one’s words” Also consider the form

to err grammatically. Verb err means to make any kind of mistake that would result in a violation of strict

grammar.

What was “reasoned compromise” in a number of 1920’s-vintage books and then as now, its significance probably was regarded as self-evident to native speakers of English, rather than as necessary of special explanation. In Google’s English user experience, it’s commonly used but it’s never used.

Part of the reason for modifying “compromise” with the adjective “reasoned” is to make a contrast with “forced compromise”, a word pair that occurs a little more often .

What are the main issues in your presentation of this question?

The title “reacquiring difficulty finding definitions of important concepts” is gobbledygook.

You failed to capitalize the first word of sentences, and the personal pronoun I, and/or I? [Update: After repairing his capitalization problem, B.L. fixed it. In a solution with a better capitalization algorithm. [3:

Phrase “this exact type problem” contains superfluous word “exact” and missing the word “of”.

Why is an important concept obscured? I prefer discussions on Chat here. “, if not rhetorical, should perhaps be treated in chat or other discussion forum simply not here. Note: For more

information, see FAQ.

Synonyms for euphoric, elated, and ecstatic are good, but don’t overlook exhilarated (refreshingly thrilled) or exuberant (uber-spirited; extremely energetic or enthusiastic) (word in a sentence).

Synonyms for euphoric, elated, and ecstatic are good, but don’t overlook exhilarated (refreshingly thrilled) or exuberant (uber-spirited; extremely energetic or enthusiastic) (word in a sentence).

Is it ever the case that the Hindu Juggernaut is
the fastest and most powerful weapon of its kind?

I suppose a real dreadnought is more powerful than a real juggernaut, but a metaphorical juggernaut is more fearsome than a metaphorical dreadnought.

How can a metaphorical juggernaut stand up against a large juggernaut?

Wikisaurus for gigantic includes some additional terms.

“Pervasive use of ampersand” was common in the 1600’s and 1700’s but I think by the mid-1800’s the practice already was an anachronism. I don’t have any of the cases, but have read novels of the 1800’s where using numerous ampersands in letters was used to signal that the letter-writer was outdated and antiquated.

A mix of usage is seen in some books printed during the period in question. For example, in A complete guide to spinning & trolling shewing how & where to take pike… ( 1, 1859) & appears in some titles and in some abbreviations like &c for etc, but in most of the text the word and usually is spelled out. I suspect David Mitchell is exaggerating.

Consider establish (in sense “To prove and cause to be accepted as true; to establish a fact; to demonstrate”); consider accredit (in sense “to put or bring into credit; to invest with credit or authority; to sanction”).