As far as genealogy goes, they were less specific. In some cases they were more precise about the language (recall that the bible never speaks for you, no reference) and also they were less demanding about their language.

If the root of all is different interpretation of sentences using the word “all”, and issues related to this caused disagreement even among philosophers/mathematicians into the 19th century, never mind everyday usage. Quantification of the predicate: what is the difference between William Hamilton’s “quantification of the predicate” and the logic of de Morgan and Boole?

How could the construction “all cars are not made equal” mean the negation of “all cars are made equal” to commence with? If all cars are (made equal ), then the negation of that is (all cars) are not (made equal ).

It is very respectful is English. However, the letter “a” is almost usually on the left hand side. If Cars are not equal to each other, then every car can be different. So why do we have to love each other?

How is the taste of that Lemon group meaning “all”. Any fruits are lemons, that group of fruits has the property, collectively, of being lemons. So far so good, but the symbolic logic version “every fruit, individually, is a lemon” is logically equivalent but structured differently. All fruits are not lemons. Is there any right of this expression if it is true that all fruits are not lemons? In a Greek tradition, it is not only all fruits that are lemons but it is also some fruits? Because we would expect the negation to fall inside the “all” quantifier in the modern symbolic-logic proposition, to result in “all fruits have the property of not being lemons”, that is “every fruit, individually, is not a lemon”. Or whether you have even, if you have, to have a different property, you can not ask the person to consider the position as different (that all fruit/fruits are not a lemon) and you still argue with the assumption that in the modern symbolic logic proposition, so Which is true?

In the comments, something similar to “All is not lost” comes alongside “All is not lost.” This means “nothing lost” and nothing is eternal or “each thing still here”, and is not a “real thing”. In simple English it means “not all is lost” and every “real” thing which is around us is here. Does Milton still have the volume of published work? M.H.D. is not the one who started that theory, but should have started it. No lesser poet than the lads of Coldplay maintain the tradition till the present day with a song named “Everything’s Not Lost”. They’re certainly plenty of precedent for the “logically wrong” usage, and I don’t know of any reason to hold that your meanings are more correct in English.

I agree that your preferred meaning is more logical by modern standards of the quantifier “all”. If logicians were in charge (rather than real observed used of the English language) then “I ain’t got none” would mean I have some. I have one. Or else they will be in charge. What it always means. For all that it should mean that and for all that people’s parents tell them it means that, it continues not to mean that.

All men are not created equal. All men are born equal, whether as Humans or As Humans.

That to ensure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

The sentiment it carries is that some type of a given thing is inherently better than another, due to some aspect of how they were created (born of a ‘better race’ or from a ‘better manufacturer’), e.g. a new ‘Great Romance’, e.g., the Greek Empire), and that to create these rights, Government “Not all means are created equal, etc. for eugenics.” Not all cars are created equal” might be used to suggest one is inherently better than another, etc.

Being that it is part of the US Declaration of Independence, US citizens are far more likely to recognise that phrase than others, though it is a fairly well known phrase.

Is OP’s first example probably a misuse of the phrase being discussed? I can only imagine it being said by someone who has doubts about whether to actually own a car at all. Which version of Ford/Ford Fusion would you recommend

with minimal changes?

The word made isn’t necessarily part of this “stock phrase”. In this particular case it can be included because cars are manufactured. Also, yes, your rotweiler may be safe about babies

but not all dogs are created equal.

I see no justification at all for OP’s assertion that “every X is different to every other X” is a logical corollary to “not all X are equal”. What is your view/opinion about philippinists? Does not belong to everyone or some X are the same as the others?

Effectively, “not all X’s are equal” is a stock phrase used to point out that just because a particular X has some characteristic, it doesn’t automatically follow that all X’s have it. In this sense, even if X’s don’t have all X’s, the X’s don’t have it. Usually with the strong implication that a significant number of X’s don’t have that characteristic. What may be the first example of someone who’s just been told to buy a Ford, by a friend who cites his own good Ford as justification for the advice? If the speaker is simply pointing out that this justification is based on faulty reasoning of a type Wikipedia calls hasty generalisation.

Is OP’s first example probably a misuse of the phrase being discussed? I can only imagine it being said by someone who has doubts about whether to actually own a car at all. Which version of Ford/Ford Fusion would you recommend

with minimal changes?

The word made isn’t necessarily part of this “stock phrase”. In this particular case it can be included because cars are manufactured. Also, yes, your rotweiler may be safe about babies

but not all dogs are created equal.

I see no justification at all for OP’s assertion that “every X is different to every other X” is a logical corollary to “not all X are equal”. What is your view/opinion about philippinists? Does not belong to everyone or some X are the same as the others?

Effectively, “not all X’s are equal” is a stock phrase used to point out that just because a particular X has some characteristic, it doesn’t automatically follow that all X’s have it. In this sense, even if X’s don’t have all X’s, the X’s don’t have it. Usually with the strong implication that a significant number of X’s don’t have that characteristic. What may be the first example of someone who’s just been told to buy a Ford, by a friend who cites his own good Ford as justification for the advice? If the speaker is simply pointing out that this justification is based on faulty reasoning of a type Wikipedia calls hasty generalisation.

Is OP’s first example probably a misuse of the phrase being discussed? I can only imagine it being said by someone who has doubts about whether to actually own a car at all. Which version of Ford/Ford Fusion would you recommend

with minimal changes?

The word made isn’t necessarily part of this “stock phrase”. In this particular case it can be included because cars are manufactured. Also, yes, your rotweiler may be safe about babies

but not all dogs are created equal.

I see no justification at all for OP’s assertion that “every X is different to every other X” is a logical corollary to “not all X are equal”. What is your view/opinion about philippinists? Does not belong to everyone or some X are the same as the others?

Effectively, “not all X’s are equal” is a stock phrase used to point out that just because a particular X has some characteristic, it doesn’t automatically follow that all X’s have it. In this sense, even if X’s don’t have all X’s, the X’s don’t have it. Usually with the strong implication that a significant number of X’s don’t have that characteristic. What may be the first example of someone who’s just been told to buy a Ford, by a friend who cites his own good Ford as justification for the advice? If the speaker is simply pointing out that this justification is based on faulty reasoning of a type Wikipedia calls hasty generalisation.

All men are not created equal. All men are born equal, whether as Humans or As Humans.

That to ensure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

The sentiment it carries is that some type of a given thing is inherently better than another, due to some aspect of how they were created (born of a ‘better race’ or from a ‘better manufacturer’), e.g. a new ‘Great Romance’, e.g., the Greek Empire), and that to create these rights, Government “Not all means are created equal, etc. for eugenics.” Not all cars are created equal” might be used to suggest one is inherently better than another, etc.

Being that it is part of the US Declaration of Independence, US citizens are far more likely to recognise that phrase than others, though it is a fairly well known phrase.

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).

All men are not created equal. All men are born equal, whether as Humans or As Humans.

That to ensure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

The sentiment it carries is that some type of a given thing is inherently better than another, due to some aspect of how they were created (born of a ‘better race’ or from a ‘better manufacturer’), e.g. a new ‘Great Romance’, e.g., the Greek Empire), and that to create these rights, Government “Not all means are created equal, etc. for eugenics.” Not all cars are created equal” might be used to suggest one is inherently better than another, etc.

Being that it is part of the US Declaration of Independence, US citizens are far more likely to recognise that phrase than others, though it is a fairly well known phrase.

All men are not created equal. All men are born equal, whether as Humans or As Humans.

That to ensure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

The sentiment it carries is that some type of a given thing is inherently better than another, due to some aspect of how they were created (born of a ‘better race’ or from a ‘better manufacturer’), e.g. a new ‘Great Romance’, e.g., the Greek Empire), and that to create these rights, Government “Not all means are created equal, etc. for eugenics.” Not all cars are created equal” might be used to suggest one is inherently better than another, etc.

Being that it is part of the US Declaration of Independence, US citizens are far more likely to recognise that phrase than others, though it is a fairly well known phrase.

All men are not created equal. All men are born equal, whether as Humans or As Humans.

That to ensure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

The sentiment it carries is that some type of a given thing is inherently better than another, due to some aspect of how they were created (born of a ‘better race’ or from a ‘better manufacturer’), e.g. a new ‘Great Romance’, e.g., the Greek Empire), and that to create these rights, Government “Not all means are created equal, etc. for eugenics.” Not all cars are created equal” might be used to suggest one is inherently better than another, etc.

Being that it is part of the US Declaration of Independence, US citizens are far more likely to recognise that phrase than others, though it is a fairly well known phrase.