kabal wyches?

Ben_S wrote:

I've tried looking online for a distinction, but sites I find seem to support this:
http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/english-grammar-using-each-and-every.html
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/adjectives-determiners-each-every.htm

Both sites note the differences of the two words, so I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there.

The basic core distinction is 'each' is referring to an individual as one, while the term 'every' is referring to a group lumped together as one. By definition of the word 'each' it is implying a separation from the 'all' and that is why I find it a questionable word to use to justify your argument that it is supposed to be inferred as all. If that was the goal - they used the wrong word. Therefore, that was not the goal.

The point being, what it is saying is Kabals customize their Raiders. That doesn't even address if other groups customize their Raiders, nor does it imply all Raiders are owned by Kabals and are thus customized, simply that those Raiders owned by Kabals are customized. It's a narrowing of the field, not a widening - make sense?

Edit - as a distinction, I could ask you to practice each day but not each morning.
I could ask you to practice every day but not every morning.

In the first example I'm ruling out morning practice.
In the second example I'm ruling out some morning practices but will allow you to practice in the morning.

See how the words have different meaning and the one is more specific to a smaller area?

Please do not double post. If you need to add more information then please use the edit button. Cheers - Cavash.

Thor665 wrote:

Both sites note the differences of the two words, so I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there.

Yes, there's a linguistic difference, but logically they're equivalent - like 'but' and 'and'.

'But' and 'and' have different connotations, because the former suggests contrast, but they can be interchanged without affecting the logic of the sentence. 'Tomorrow will be cloudy, but warm' and 'Tomorrow will be cloudy and warm' both tell you the same things about tomorrow's weather.

'Each' and 'every' also have different connotations - 'each' emphasises individuality - but both sites gives examples of their being used interchangeably. For instance, 'There's a TV set in each/every room at the hotel.' Logically, if not grammatically, they're equivalent.

Thor665 wrote:

as a distinction, I could ask you to practice each day but not each morning.
I could ask you to practice every day but not every morning.

In the first example I'm ruling out morning practice.
In the second example I'm ruling out some morning practices but will allow you to practice in the morning.

Both sentences look equivalent to me. If I practice Monday afternoon, Tuesday morning, Wednesday afternoon then I practiced each day but not each morning.

(In both cases there may be some ambiguity as to what you meant by the negative, but I don't think that's any different. If you wanted to exclude morning practice you could say '...but not in the morning' or '...but not any morning')

Thor665 wrote:

The point being, what it is saying is Kabals customize their Raiders. That doesn't even address if other groups customize their Raiders, nor does it imply all Raiders are owned by Kabals and are thus customized, simply that those Raiders owned by Kabals are customized.

For all I know that may have been what the author intended, but it's not what he actually wrote.

'Each Raider is customised by its owning Kabal' is not the same as 'Each Raider owned by a Kabal is customised by it'. The former says each Raider is owned by a Kabal (and tells us what they do with it), whereas the latter merely says what they do with their Raiders while allowing that there are Raiders not owned by Kabals.

Consider, 'Each finalist was nominated by (at least) two judges'. This is silent on a lot of things: Both finalists and non-finalists may have been nominated by non-judges (it doesn't say). Also it's possible that there were people nominated by two or more judges but who are not finalists (again, it doesn't say). But one thing we are told is that there's no one who is a finalist without having been nominated by (at least) two judges.

Ben_S wrote:

Yes, there's a linguistic difference, but logically they're equivalent - like 'but' and 'and'.

If there's a linguistic difference then, logically, there's a difference between them, yes?

Ben_S wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

as a distinction, I could ask you to practice each day but not each morning.
I could ask you to practice every day but not every morning.

In the first example I'm ruling out morning practice.
In the second example I'm ruling out some morning practices but will allow you to practice in the morning.

Both sentences look equivalent to me. If I practice Monday afternoon, Tuesday morning, Wednesday afternoon then I practiced each day but not each morning.

You are practicing in the morning.
I asked you not to practice each morning.
That would be like if I walked up to you in the morning and said don't practice this morning, and then I did it each day.

if you can't see how that's different then I think we have the basis for our contention here. Because those two sentences *are* saying something different.

Thor665 wrote:

If there's a linguistic difference then, logically, there's a difference between them, yes?

Yes, there is a difference, a linguistic one, but not a logical difference. 'P and Q' and 'P but Q' licence all of the same logical inferences. See, for example:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Discrete_Mathematics/Logic#Compound_Propositions (example 3, part c)
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm (point 3)

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

as a distinction, I could ask you to practice each day but not each morning.
I could ask you to practice every day but not every morning.

In the first example I'm ruling out morning practice.
In the second example I'm ruling out some morning practices but will allow you to practice in the morning.

Both sentences look equivalent to me. If I practice Monday afternoon, Tuesday morning, Wednesday afternoon then I practiced each day but not each morning.

You are practicing in the morning.
I asked you not to practice each morning.
That would be like if I walked up to you in the morning and said don't practice this morning, and then I did it each day.

if you can't see how that's different then I think we have the basis for our contention here. Because those two sentences *are* saying something different.

No, you asked me not to practice each morning, and I'm not practising each morning, only Tuesday morning.

If you had told me to practice each morning, then you would expect me to practice Monday morning, Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning. If I don't do that, then I'm not practising each morning. Conversely, if you tell me not to practice each morning, then you're telling me not to practice Monday morning, Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning - i.e. to take some mornings off. Maybe you meant don't practice any morning, but that's a different proposition.

For an example of someone else using 'not each morning', see: http://www.killingtonlinks.com/real_estate.html

Quote :

Wake up each morning to the Green Mountains of Vermont. Ok, maybe not each morning, but how about every weekend!

Clearly, here 'not each morning' means 'not every morning' but allows some mornings, such as weekends. It does not mean, as you suggest it should, 'not any mornings'.

(I had trouble finding examples, but only because Googling "not each morning" picks up phrases like "like it or not, each morning...".)

[quote="Ben_S"]

Thor665 wrote:

Yes, there is a difference, a linguistic one, but not a logical difference. 'P and Q' and 'P but Q' licence all of the same logical inferences. See, for example:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Discrete_Mathematics/Logic#Compound_Propositions (example 3, part c)
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm (point 3)

Okay, so you meant a difference in designing logical propositions wherein they can be used interchangeably.
As opposed to in regular written prose where they have different definitions.
Establish the DE Codex as a logical proposition and I will cede the point - until that happens, I see no value to noting this.

Ben_S wrote:

No, you asked me not to practice each morning, and I'm not practising each morning, only Tuesday morning.

You're using the word incorrectly there.
Each is used to add individual emphasis - it specifically addresses the smaller portion.
Every is discussing the larger situation in a generality.
That's the distinction. A fine one to be sure, but it does exist there.

Ben_S wrote:

If you had told me to practice each morning, then you would expect me to practice Monday morning, Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning. If I don't do that, then I'm not practising each morning.

Correct and agreed upon.

Ben_S wrote:

Conversely, if you tell me not to practice each morning, then you're telling me not to practice Monday morning, Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning - i.e. to take some mornings off. Maybe you meant don't practice any morning, but that's a different proposition.

No, by saying don't practice each morning it is as though I appear in front of you every single day and indicate that morning is not a morning for practice. The point of each is to single out a section on an individual basis - that is the definition of 'each'. You are choosing to ignore that definition and insert a perception of your own, and that is what the flaw of this rebuttal is.

[quote="Ben_S"]For an example of someone else using 'not each morning', see: http://www.killingtonlinks.com/real_estate.html

Quote :

Wake up each morning to the Green Mountains of Vermont. Ok, maybe not each morning, but how about every weekend!

I will provide you a  for using a real estate write-up to argue your prose defense.
It was my understanding you had already researched the meaning of the words. There is a reason there are two different words - they are not identical, there *is* a difference between them.

As far as the sentence, it doesn't even make sense regardless of if every or each was used. What, the mountains only show up on Weekends? The only way it makes sense is if you can only wake up there on the weekends, like a limited rental, or if there is an implied joke that some days you can't wake up to them...because...stuff.

But, seriously, a real estate website? Because there is assuredly a proper use of he word there?
As I recall *both* of your previous links about the differences between each and every agreed that they had a different meaning.

I have an Oxford English Dictionary in front of me (96 American Edition)
Now, far be it for me to suggest that Oxford has a better grasp of the definition of words than 'person who wrote a real estate blurb'
But the definitions are different.
Of specific note I would call to your attention the following bits.

Each - every one of two or more things regarded separately (as in, each morning - as I indicated)
Every - all possible; the utmost degree.

There is also the phrase 'each and every' whose meaning is what you are arguing the sentence implies. I will note my counter-position still holds that it does not (or that it is widely open to interpretation) because it does not use the defining language. Each does not mean every, it means all single within a group. That group is, as noted in the sentence, Raiders owned by Kabals. I agree that they are all customized, I still hold it doesn't prove that all raiders everywhere are owned by Kabals - it does not say that.

Ben_S wrote:

Clearly, here 'not each morning' means 'not every morning' but allows some mornings, such as weekends. It does not mean, as you suggest it should, 'not any mornings'.

I will agree that is how the writer appears to intend using it.

Ben_S wrote:

(I had trouble finding examples, but only because Googling "not each morning" picks up phrases like "like it or not, each morning...".)

You should put quotes around it as a limiter to force the words to be in the order you demand.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22not+each+morning%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Thor665 wrote:

Establish the DE Codex as a logical proposition and I will cede the point - until that happens, I see no value to noting this.

The Codex isn't a proposition of any kind, so I'm not quite sure what you mean here. But it doesn't require the Codex to be a logical treatise. Implications follow from what you say, whether you intend it or not.

'But' and 'and' differ in emphasis, but have the same logic. Suppose the Codex said "Venoms are smaller but faster than Raiders". This would be logically equivalent to "Venoms are smaller and faster than Raiders". There's a slightly different connotation, but both support the same inferences - e.g. you can conclude "Venoms are faster than Raiders".

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

Conversely, if you tell me not to practice each morning, then you're telling me not to practice Monday morning, Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning - i.e. to take some mornings off. Maybe you meant don't practice any morning, but that's a different proposition.

No, by saying don't practice each morning it is as though I appear in front of you every single day and indicate that morning is not a morning for practice. The point of each is to single out a section on an individual basis - that is the definition of 'each'. You are choosing to ignore that definition and insert a perception of your own, and that is what the flaw of this rebuttal is.

It's not a 'perception of my own'; the real estate website was intended to show that it's supported in ordinary English (though I grant your point that a single website isn't conclusive).

If I understand you correctly, you seem to accept that the following two sentences are equivalent:
[5] 'Practice each day'
and
[6] 'Practice every day'
And yet you think there's a difference between
[7] 'Do not practice each morning'
and
[8] 'Do not practice every morning'

I assume that the change from day to morning is immaterial. I don't see how taking two equivalent sentences, and putting 'not' in the same place in both, results in different sentences. But, in any case, I could concede that you're right about the logic of 'not each'. The original case under discussion didn't involve a negation. What we're interested in is a difference between 'each' and 'every', not between 'not each' and 'not every'.

Thor665 wrote:

I have an Oxford English Dictionary in front of me (96 American Edition)

Each - every one of two or more things regarded separately (as in, each morning - as I indicated)
Every - all possible; the utmost degree.

If 'each' means 'every one of two or more things regarded separately' then I don't see why you have a problem with 'each Raider' meaning 'every Raider (regarded separately)'. There's a difference of emphasis, sure, but the two are often interchangeable.

However, given your below remark, this doesn't seem to be the difference between us.

Thor665 wrote:

Each does not mean every, it means all single within a group. That group is, as noted in the sentence, Raiders owned by Kabals. I agree that they are all customized, I still hold it doesn't prove that all raiders everywhere are owned by Kabals - it does not say that.

We've already said that both 'each' and 'every' can apply to all within a group or domain, as in 'I ate each cookie with relish' and 'I ate every cookie with relish' - both would imply all cookies in an assumed domain (for instance, the jar) rather than in existence.

But I think this gets to the nub of the issue. You assume that the sentence is talking only about that group of Raiders owned by Kabals, which may be a subset of all Raiders in existence.

That would be correct if the sentence was something like: 'Each Raider owned by a Kabal is customised'. If this were so, it wouldn't matter whether it said 'each Raider (owned by a Kabal)' or 'every Raider (owned by a Kabal)'; so the difference between 'each' and 'every' is a red herring.

The crucial issue is what domain or group the sentence is about. The sentence is of the form 'Each Raider is customised by its owning Kabal'. The bit about owning Kabals isn't qualifying 'each Raider', but merely telling us who it is that customises them.

When it says 'Each Raider is customised', there's no indication that a restricted domain is being talked about - we're entitled to take the domain to be all Raiders in existence, so equivalent to 'every Raider' or 'all Raiders'. And then it tells us something about all Raiders, viz. that they're customised by their owning Kabal.

I have to admit I'm not sure where to proceed with this as you're handwaving the definition of the word to the point where you have managed to agree there's a reasonable chance that when I used the negative I managed to have the words mean different things - but then deciding that it was because of the negative rather than an actual difference in the meaning of the words.

Each Raider is painted red by its owning Kabal, and each Raider is painted blue by its owning Cult.

Who owns all the Raiders now?
If the initial part of the sentence should be read as 'all Raiders in existence' then how can the second part exist and still make sense in that sentence?
If we switch 'each' for 'every' (and I know you don't see this) but then the sentence would not make sense except, perhaps, by people writing up real estate websites.

Thor665 wrote:

you have managed to agree there's a reasonable chance that when I used the negative I managed to have the words mean different things - but then deciding that it was because of the negative rather than an actual difference in the meaning of the words.

That's not what I said. I said I could concede it (for sake of argument); not that I did. And, as far as I'm aware, you did take 'practice each day' and 'practice every day' to mean the same, so it's reasonable to suppose the difference you're seeing does lie in the negative rather than any difference between 'each' and 'every'.

Thor665 wrote:

Each Raider is painted red by its owning Kabal, and each Raider is painted blue by its owning Cult.

Who owns all the Raiders now?
If the initial part of the sentence should be read as 'all Raiders in existence' then how can the second part exist and still make sense in that sentence?

I don't think that sentence does make sense, unless perhaps each Raider is joint-owned by both a Kabal and a Cult who constantly fight over its colour scheme...

Anyway, I realised a further problem with your interpretation of the sentence:

Thor665 wrote:

Each does not mean every, it means all single within a group. That group is, as noted in the sentence, Raiders owned by Kabals. I agree that they are all customized, I still hold it doesn't prove that all raiders everywhere are owned by Kabals - it does not say that.

'Each Raider' was in fact a substitution. The actual sentence is "Though each of these craft is customised by its owning Kabal...". So, 'these craft' must refer back to what was being discussed in the previous sentence, which was Raiders. I don't see how it can be read as qualified by something that comes later in the sentence, to mean Raiders that are owned by Kabals.

Ben_S wrote:

And, as far as I'm aware, you did take 'practice each day' and 'practice every day' to mean the same, so it's reasonable to suppose the difference you're seeing does lie in the negative rather than any difference between 'each' and 'every'.

 

Ben_S wrote:

I don't think that sentence does make sense, unless perhaps each Raider is joint-owned by both a Kabal and a Cult who constantly fight over its colour scheme...

If I have cookies and eat each cookie and you have cookies and eat each cookie - how does that not make sense?
If that makes sense, why does the color scheme one not?

Ben_S wrote:

Anyway, I realised a further problem with your interpretation of the sentence:

Thor665 wrote:

Each does not mean every, it means all single within a group. That group is, as noted in the sentence, Raiders owned by Kabals. I agree that they are all customized, I still hold it doesn't prove that all raiders everywhere are owned by Kabals - it does not say that.

'Each Raider' was in fact a substitution. The actual sentence is "Though each of these craft is customised by its owning Kabal...". So, 'these craft' must refer back to what was being discussed in the previous sentence, which was Raiders. I don't see how it can be read as qualified by something that comes later in the sentence, to mean Raiders that are owned by Kabals.

'These craft' is a pronoun for 'Raider'
The more damaging aspect to my stance is to continue the sentence and note that it then notes 'all' in reference to the same Raiders.
Though I would then counter with by 'all' it means 'all Raiders regardless of customization' rather than 'all Raiders - ergo, all owned by Kabals, which is all of them'.

Each and Every remain distinct and different words with different meanings, however.

Thor665 wrote:

If I have cookies and eat each cookie and you have cookies and eat each cookie - how does that not make sense?
If that makes sense, why does the color scheme one not?

Here you've provided context - that we both have some cookies - so that specifies a domain or group: you eat each of your cookies and I eat each of my cookies.

If you say something like 'Kabals have Raiders and paint each of them blue, while Cults paint each of theirs red' then that makes sense, but again it's because the sentence now tells us that both Kabals and Cults own Raiders, so we take 'each' in each case to apply to their Raiders.

In your original sentence ("Each Raider is painted red by its owning Kabal, and each Raider is painted blue by its owning Cult"), there's nothing that distinguishes the reference of the two instances of 'each Raider' - if we assume they have the same reference then the only conclusion is some kind of joint ownership.

Thor665 wrote:

'These craft' is a pronoun for 'Raider'

Yes, so the sentence is telling us something about Raiders, indeed something that's true about each Raider. And it tells us two things about them: 1) that each of them is customised and 2) that this customisation is done by its owning Kabal.

Thor665 wrote:

Each and Every remain distinct and different words with different meanings, however.

I'm happy to allow that they can have some differences in meaning. In fact, I thought of an example that may illustrate this: 'Every Raider is owned by one Kabal' can be interpreted to mean that there is one Kabal that owns all of the Raiders. 'Each Raider is owned by one Kabal' does not have that implication, because 'each' refers to all of them individually, rather than collectively.

But the crucial point is that both 'each' and 'every' both refer to all items within a given domain. If the Codex says "Each Raider has an Aethersail" then it means that all Raiders do; you can't say 'but what about the ones that don't?'

Similarly, if the Codex says "Each Raider is owned by a Kabal" then it excludes the possibility of Cult-owned Raiders. (But this is where we see that the issue isn't really about each/every but about the whether 'these craft' refers to Raiders in general or only Raiders owned by Kabals - I don't see how it can be the latter, since there's no indication of that.)

Ben_S wrote:

if we assume they have the same reference then the only conclusion is some kind of joint ownership.

Why would you assume that though? That feels like you're attempting to be obtuse in order to avoid ceding a point - no?

Ben_S wrote:

I'm happy to allow that they can have some differences in meaning. In fact, I thought of an example that may illustrate this: 'Every Raider is owned by one Kabal' can be interpreted to mean that there is one Kabal that owns all of the Raiders. 'Each Raider is owned by one Kabal' does not have that implication, because 'each' refers to all of them individually, rather than collectively.

I agree with that, it is part of the individual aspect that each brings to a sentence.

Ben_S wrote:

But the crucial point is that both 'each' and 'every' both refer to all items within a given domain. If the Codex says "Each Raider has an Aethersail" then it means that all Raiders do; you can't say 'but what about the ones that don't?'

That would depend on how it was used though - if that was the totality of the sentence then I would agree it meant 'every' Raider and was just phrased poorly.

Ben_S wrote:

Similarly, if the Codex says "Each Raider is owned by a Kabal" then it excludes the possibility of Cult-owned Raiders. (But this is where we see that the issue isn't really about each/every but about the whether 'these craft' refers to Raiders in general or only Raiders owned by Kabals - I don't see how it can be the latter, since there's no indication of that.)

Why is it the former then? There is an equal amount of lack of indication for that.
Clearly 'these craft' refers to the ones owned by Kabals - the question is whether it is legit to presume that is an absolute that extends across all Raiders because they are only owned by Kabals. I have chosen to presume 'no' and you have chosen to presume 'yes'.

I base my logic that Each is s a word used for singling out individual aspects.
You have decided that each equates to every in some manner, and means the whole entirety of Raiders in existence and that, apparently, all Cults and Covens rent them or something.

Your concept, to my mind, requires a larger logic leap than mine, which is why I disagree with it and why we are debating if Each != Every or Each =/= Every.
I feel like we've shown that they do not, and therefore we've moved to a reserve defense for your position wherein the question is if the sentence using Each has delineated that it is about all Raiders in existence or not.

I would submit it is clearly not (albeit again, going on my concept that GW just wrote the sentence sloppily) but note that 'each' Raider is adorned with trophies...but yet later when 'all' Raiders are discussed, being adorned with trophies is not there, it is a seperate part of the sentence.

If Each Raider owned by Kabals is adorned with trophies, why is being adorned with trophies not an absolute of a Raider?

Because not all of them are adorned with trophies.

Therefore 'each' is used to discuss the Raiders owned by Kabals, who adorn all their owned Raiders wit trophies, but other owners of Raiders do not.

I also think we've just proven to have spent about 3,000% more time considering this sentence than GW ever did

Please do not double post. If you have to add more to a previous statement then please use the edit function Cheers - Cavash.

I think the reason we've been discussing each and every is because you said this:

Thor665 wrote:

By the exact same logic I could note that he chose, specifically, not to use the word 'every' so by dint of that choice being made then clearly he did not desire the inference of 'every' to be applied to the statement.

My point was that the two terms, as used here, are equivalent. That is "...each of these craft [Raiders] is customised..." means the same as "...every one of these craft [Raiders] is customised..."

There's absolutely no need for you to deny this, because the basis of your position is that, whichever word is used, it refers not to all Raiders in existence, but to all that are owned by Kabals. That's why I said the each/every issue was a red herring.

The crucial point is whether "each Raider is customised by its owning Kabal" means only "each Raider that is owned by a Kabal is customised". I submit not.

The sentence tells us what it's about ("each Raider") and then tells us something about them (that they're customised by their owning Kabals). There's no justification for reading "owning Kabals" as qualifying "each Raider", rather than telling us who does the customising. If the author meant only those owned by Kabals, he should have said so.

If someone says "each Raider" without qualification, then I don't see how it's a leap of logic to take that to mean all of them in existence. To suppose they mean all of them owned by Kabals has no more basis than to take them to mean all the blue ones.

I think this is all the clearer when we note that the sentence doesn't actually say 'Raiders' but rather 'these craft', referring to the what's already under discussion, where there's been no mention of being owned by a Kabal.

I would like you to address the trophies part though - I feel that's a solid knockout of your stance.

Thor665 wrote:

note that 'each' Raider is adorned with trophies...but yet later when 'all' Raiders are discussed, being adorned with trophies is not there, it is a seperate part of the sentence.

If Each Raider owned by Kabals is adorned with trophies, why is being adorned with trophies not an absolute of a Raider?

Because not all of them are adorned with trophies.

Therefore 'each' is used to discuss the Raiders owned by Kabals, who adorn all their owned Raiders wit trophies, but other owners of Raiders do not.

I'm not sure I see your point, because nothing here seems particularly troubling to me.

The sentence structure is roughly like this 'each Raider is personalised (customisations and trophies) but "all have certain key features in common" (aesthersails, etc)'. Trophies aren't in the latter list, because they're not key features, even if all Raiders happen to have them.

Something can be happen to be true of all members of a class, without being essential to what it is to be a member of that class (which is what I take you to mean by 'an absolute').

If all Raiders have trophies, why is that not a Key Component of them? All of them have them, it's an integral thing about what Raiders are - they have trophies on them (not grisly ones, obviously, but trophies) . Why separate that out?

Thor665 wrote:

All of them have them, [so] it's an integral thing about what Raiders are

Assuming I understand what you mean by 'integral' or 'absolute', then this is just false. I take it to mean that the thing in question is essential to what it is to be a Raider or a constitutive part of being one.

If having X is integral to being a Y, then something cannot possibly be a Y without having X.

However, it's possible that all Ys do in fact have Z, though Z is not integral to being a Y. This means that there could be a Y that doesn't have Z, it just so happens that there isn't any actual Y that lacks Z.

For example, it may be integral to something's being a bicycle that it has two wheels. If it doesn't have (exactly) two wheels, then it's not a bicycle. It might happen to be true that all bikes also have bells, but having a bell is not integral to being a bike - there could have been a bike without a bell.

Similarly, it can happen to be the case that all Raiders have trophies without that being integral to what it is for something to be a Raider.

Now, I think I've addressed your 'trophies' point - could you try responding to the points made in my post before last? To recap/expand: I don't see what justification you have for taking 'each Raider' to mean 'each Raider that's owned by a Kabal', rather than simply 'each Raider'.

Consider again the case where you tell me 'practice each day'. What if I do so up until Friday and then I take the weekend off? You may say 'I told you to practice each day'. If I simply reply 'I took you to mean each week day, not weekends too' that wouldn't be very convincing. If you meant only each week day, then you should have said so; since you didn't, we assume you to mean each day without qualification.

Re: Trophies - so you're claiming key features != integral? As in it's impossible to take a untalented steersman and still call the vessel a Raider?

Re: Each Raider - because I submit that the classification of the smaller unit comes within the sentence itself. By introducing that the customized Raiders are Kabal Raiders the each is self-fulfilling as a smaller sentence within itself. The ability of a pronoun to be used for Raiders does not indicate that it is a conversation for all Raiders in existence.

All Teddy Bears are bears.
They are given ribbons by their owning girls.
Therefore all Teddy Bears are owned by girls and have ribbons

Would you say that is a logical conclusion?
Because that is what you appear to be arguing.

Thor665 wrote:

Re: Trophies - so you're claiming key features != integral? As in it's impossible to take a untalented steersman and still call the vessel a Raider?

What I was originally saying is that universal features (like a bell on a bicycle or trophies on a Raider) aren't the same as integral features (the things that make it the kind of thing it is).

It's a fair response, on your part, to say that a helmsman is presumably not integral to something's being a Raider. Key features may not be the same as integral either - it was you that introduced 'integral' I believe - but it similarly seems possible for something to be universal without being a key feature either.

To build on the bicycle example, a saddle may be a key feature. It's perhaps not integral, something without a saddle can still be a bicycle I guess, but it's lacking something that you really want in a bicycle (which I guess we can call a 'key feature'). Whereas a bell is not necessarily a key feature.

(To pre-empt one possible objection: arguing whether a bell is a key feature is beside the point, it's merely an example; the issue is whether there could be something that all bicycles have but that is not a key feature - perhaps all bikes have 32 spokes on each wheel, but something that had only 30 wouldn't, on that basis, be a bad bicycle.)

Thor665 wrote:

Re: Each Raider - because I submit that the classification of the smaller unit comes within the sentence itself. By introducing that the customized Raiders are Kabal Raiders the each is self-fulfilling as a smaller sentence within itself. The ability of a pronoun to be used for Raiders does not indicate that it is a conversation for all Raiders in existence.

The sentence goes on to mention owning Kabals, but there's nothing in the sentence that suggests this qualifies 'each Raider'.

Leave out the bit about customisation and suppose the sentence was 'each Raider is owned by a Kabal'. By your logic this sentence tells us nothing informative, because it's only about those Raiders that are owned by Kabals, which are obviously owned by Kabals, and therefore leaves open the possibility that there are others that aren't.

As I said before, if it was intended to be about only those Raiders owned by Kabals, then it would have been something like "each Raider owned by a Kabal is customised". That's different from "each Raider is customised by its owning Kabal", where there's no qualification attached to 'each Raider'.

Thor665 wrote:

All Teddy Bears are bears.
They are given ribbons by their owning girls.
Therefore all Teddy Bears are owned by girls and have ribbons

Would you say that is a logical conclusion?
Because that is what you appear to be arguing.

The structure here isn't analogous to what we're discussing. Suppose we have:

"Teddy bears are popular children's toys. Each teddy is given ribbons by the girl that owns it."

Then, yes, this says that each teddy is owned by a girl. That may seem absurd, because we know that some teddies are owned by boys rather than girls; but this just means that the sentence is false, it doesn't alter what it says.

Given that GW fluff writers define the reality of the 40k universe, we can't simply dismiss what they write about it as false. "Each Raider is customised by its owning Kabal" therefore tells us that each Raider has an owning Kabal, because their saying so makes it true about their world.

Re: Trophies - so you would define key feature as something that defines what a Raider is. So, again, if a Raider has a non-skilled steersman does it cease to be a Raider? If you disagree then that is clearly not what they meant by 'key feature' and at that point it brings into question why the trophies are distinct if, indeed, all Raiders are owned by Kabals and all Kabals put trophies on all their Raiders.

Re: sentence structure. Yes, if the sentence was, in its entirety, 'Each Raider is owned by a Kabal.' Then I would at least agree with you that it was not as open to debate, because it wouldn't be using the specificity aspect of Each but rather simply the categorization. However, since it tells you what happens to each Raider by its owning Kabals, it is having an exclusive aspect, not an inclusive one. Which is, as established, what the word means and is for.

Re: Logic structure - you're introducing a presumption into the logic. The sentence does not tell you that they're all owned by girls, it tells you that all of them that are owned by girls - bleh, I suppose we just get back into the debate. Okay, let's try this.

Teddy bears are popular children's toys.
Each teddy is given ribbons by the girl that owns it.
Each teddy is given a hat by the boy that owns it.

By your logic you would say that *all* teddies are now owned by a boy *and* a girl, and if not then that teddy does not exist and that no teddy lacks a bow or hat?

Let's add a second wrinkle.
Let's say it is a *fact* in this universe that all girls who own teddy bears give them ribbons.
How would I say that to someone?

Could I say;

Each girl who owns a teddy bear has given it ribbons?
Each teddy bear owned by a girl is given ribbons?
Each teddy bear a girl owns is given ribbons?
Each teddy bear is given, by the girl that owns it, ribbons?

Which are legit?
Which are not?
Why?
And which preclude the ownership of teddy bears by boys?
Why?

By my definition and use of the word, all are legit statements because they all indicate that teddy bears owned by girls have ribbons. None rule out that boys can own teddy bears (or, even, that teddy bears with ribbons have to be a girl owned teddy bear, because it's possible guys give teddy bears ribbons too.

Thor665 wrote:

Re: Trophies - so you would define key feature as something that defines what a Raider is. So, again, if a Raider has a non-skilled steersman does it cease to be a Raider?

How did you get that from me saying "Key features may not be the same as integral either [...] a saddle may be a key feature. It's perhaps not integral, something without a saddle can still be a bicycle I guess, but it's lacking something that you really want in a bicycle (which I guess we can call a 'key feature')"?

I'd suggest we have three things here:

1) What you call integral or absolute features, which I take to be defining characteristics - for instance two wheels on a bicycle. These will of course be universal, i.e. all bicycles will have two wheels, since that's part of what makes them a bicycle.

2) 'Key features' I'm taking to be important ones, presumably because they relate to how good an item is at fulfilling its function - for instance a saddle on a bicycle. You can have a bicycle without a saddle, but you'll really wish it had one. These may be universal, but they don't have to be and universal features don't have to be key.

3) Other features may also be universally true of bicycles, for instance it may happen to be true that all bicycles have a bell or that all of them happen to have 32 spokes on each wheel or that all of them happen to be red (etc). But that this happens to be true of all bicycles does not mean it is either integral or a key feature - something could still be a bicycle, and in no way defective as a bicycle, without possessing this property.

Thor665 wrote:

Re: sentence structure. Yes, if the sentence was, in its entirety, 'Each Raider is owned by a Kabal.' Then I would at least agree with you that it was not as open to debate, because it wouldn't be using the specificity aspect of Each but rather simply the categorization. However, since it tells you what happens to each Raider by its owning Kabals, it is having an exclusive aspect, not an inclusive one. Which is, as established, what the word means and is for.

I don't see how you know that one sentence is using what you call the 'specificity aspect' and one isn't.

Both begin by telling you what the sentence is about ('each Raider') and then tell you something about that subject matter - in the first case that each of them is customised by its owning Kabal, in the latter case merely that each has an owning Kabal. I don't see how adding information about customisation, in your view, changes what the sentence is about from all Raiders generally to only those owned by Kabals.

'Each' can indicate specificity or individuality, but this isn't the same as narrowing its domain. "Every Raider is owned by one Kabal" can mean that all of them together are owned by a single Kabal. "Each Raider is owned by one Kabal" can't mean that, because it's telling us that something is true of each one individually, rather than all of them together. But that doesn't mean it's referring only to those owned by Kabals.

Thor665 wrote:

Let's say it is a *fact* in this universe that all girls who own teddy bears give them ribbons.
How would I say that to someone?

Could I say;

Each girl who owns a teddy bear has given it ribbons?
Each teddy bear owned by a girl is given ribbons?
Each teddy bear a girl owns is given ribbons?
Each teddy bear is given, by the girl that owns it, ribbons?

Which are legit? Which are not? Why? And which preclude the ownership of teddy bears by boys? Why?

By my definition and use of the word, all are legit statements because they all indicate that teddy bears owned by girls have ribbons. None rule out that boys can own teddy bears (or, even, that teddy bears with ribbons have to be a girl owned teddy bear, because it's possible guys give teddy bears ribbons too.

Well, the obvious way to express the fact you just stated would be the words that you used, "all girls who own teddy bears give them ribbons". This does not exclude boys owning teddy bears, since 'all' here applies to girls, not teddy bears.

Your first sentence ("Each girl who owns a teddy bear has given it ribbons") is probably legit, if by that you mean true. The one possible case where it might not be is if, in this universe, it's not the case that each individual girl gives her individual teddy bear ribbons, but rather there's some kind of collective ribbon-giving. In that case we may want to say that all the girls who own teddies (collectively) have given them ribbons, without saying each of them individually has done this. (This is what I'd call the individuating aspect of 'each' - as above.) It doesn't rule out boys owning teddy bears, because it's about what each girl who owns a bear does to her bear; it says nothing about other bears.

Sentences two and three ("Each teddy bear owned by a girl is given ribbons" and "Each teddy bear a girl owns is given ribbons") seem equivalent and both to be true. On the other hand, neither expresses the stipulated fact about the world, since neither specifies who gives the bears ribbons. These sentences would still be true if, for example, someone else put ribbons on all the bears owned by girls. Again, neither sentence is about all bears - in both cases the 'each' is clearly qualified ("Each teddy bear owned by a girl", "Each teddy bear a girl owns").

Sentence four ("Each teddy bear is given, by the girl that owns it, ribbons"), however, suggests that each teddy is owned by a girl. There's no qualification on 'each' here, as in the previous two sentences. Depending on whether or not this is true in your hypothetical world, this may be true or false.

Now, it could be that the context suggests a narrower domain for 'each' - suppose there's a 'teddy bears' picnic' convention, where girls up to age 8 enter their favourite teddies and dolls, arranged in a decorated picnic scene. If someone at this convention says something like "Each teddy is given ribbons by the girl that owns it" then we understand them to be referring to each teddy in the convention (rather than 'in existence') and thus understood the sentence may be true. Note, however, that we don't take them to mean each teddy owned by a girl - so understood their sentence would probably be false (assuming girls not at the convention had not given their teddy ribbons).

Further, this relies on context to specify the domain or group under consideration. Suppose there was someone who did not know what a teddy bear was. He may look it up in a dictionary or encyclopaedia - something analogous I'd suggest to the Codex entry. If there it says "Each teddy bear is given, by the girl that owns it, ribbons" then, absent any other indication of context, that would suggest that each teddy bear (in existence) is owned by a girl. Either boys do not (solely) own teddies or this sentence is false.

Key Features - so you're really just going that 'key features' are just stuff you expect/want and that's what they mean by key features? So even though all Raiders have trophies, you wouldn't expect it nor want or need it in order for it to be a Raider? I can see the argument, but you're really putting a lot of twist on what the sentence means in order to get it to match your perceived conclusion of 'each'.

Sentence structure - I know that specificity exists because the word 'Each' is being used. You now understand that it means something different from 'every' but are still aruging that it applies to every Raider in existence in that sentence even though, unlike if every had been used, a second sentence could easily have proved different. Going back to my red and blue paint example (which, I'll concede, you refuse to accept) both of those sentences can exist and be true at the same time, one is talking about Raiders owned by Kabals, and the other about ones owned by Cults. By the sheer fact the phrase 'each and every' exists it showcases the clear distinction between them and also the occasioanl need to include 'every' into a conversation using 'each' in order to add to the breadth of 'each's scope.

Re: Teddy bears -
Each teddy bear is given, by the girl that owns it, ribbons?

I set you up linguistically for a trap here.

Each teddy bear is given, by the girl that owns it, ribbons?
By the girl that owns it, each teddy bear is given ribbons?

Are the same sentence.
Do you think they have the same meaning by the way you define 'each'?

Thor665 wrote:

Sentence structure - I know that specificity exists because the word 'Each' is being used.

I'm not clear what you mean by 'specificity', but if I have you right you think because they use 'each' they mean 'each within some class' rather than 'all'. I don't see how you get this from the fact that 'each' is used.

Further, when I asked you about the sentence "Each Raider is owned by a Kabal" you conceded that that sentence would indeed mean all of them. So what you're calling specificity does not seem to follow from the use of the word 'each'.

Thor665 wrote:

You now understand that it means something different from 'every' but are still aruging that it applies to every Raider in existence in that sentence even though, unlike if every had been used, a second sentence could easily have proved different. [...] By the sheer fact the phrase 'each and every' exists it showcases the clear distinction between them and also the occasioanl need to include 'every' into a conversation using 'each' in order to add to the breadth of 'each's scope.

'Each' does have different connotations from 'every', in that it focuses on the items picked out individually rather than collectively, but that does not show that it is not referring to all of the items in question. Both are alike in this respect.

I don't deny that people say 'each and every', but I do deny that it shows any clear difference between them - it's used for emphasis and is, strictly, redundant. What's the difference between 'practice each day' and 'practice each and every day'?

(Also, to show I'm not alone here: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/each-and-every.aspx )

Thor665 wrote:

Re: Teddy bears -
I set you up linguistically for a trap here.

Each teddy bear is given, by the girl that owns it, ribbons?
By the girl that owns it, each teddy bear is given ribbons?

Are the same sentence.
Do you think they have the same meaning by the way you define 'each'?

Clearly they're not the same sentence. I take it you're asking whether they're equivalent, but I don't think the second is even grammatical, so it's difficult to know what it means.

Ben_S wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

Sentence structure - I know that specificity exists because the word 'Each' is being used.

I'm not clear what you mean by 'specificity', but if I have you right you think because they use 'each' they mean 'each within some class' rather than 'all'.

Correct, since they talk about the Kabals, what they mean by each is applied in relation to the group they discuss.

Specificity.
Individuality.
Separately.

Take your pick and you're getting the basic gist of my comment.

Ben_S wrote:

I don't deny that people say 'each and every', but I do deny that it shows any clear difference between them - it's used for emphasis and is, strictly, redundant. What's the difference between 'practice each day' and 'practice each and every day'?

I am forced to admit I cannot discern one.

Ben_S wrote:

Clearly they're not the same sentence. I don't think the second is even grammatical, so it's difficult to know what it means.

 
The second is grammatical.
If you want to claim it is not please back that up so at least I can defend the accusation.
Also, pay attention to how the commas are used in the first sentence - if that sentence is grammatical, so is the second.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

Sentence structure - I know that specificity exists because the word 'Each' is being used.

I'm not clear what you mean by 'specificity', but if I have you right you think because they use 'each' they mean 'each within some class' rather than 'all'.

Correct, since they talk about the Kabals, what they mean by each is applied in relation to the group they discuss.

Specificity.
Individuality.
Separately.

Take your pick and you're getting the basic gist of my comment.

But specificity and individuality seem to be different things here. I say 'each' refers to all of the things considered individually, i.e. one-by-one, which can be contrasted with 'every', which may refer to all of them en masse or collectively. That's what I'm happy to call 'individuality', but it's very different from what you have in mind - both still refers to all items in the given category (and the category given here is Raiders).

You seem to suggest that 'each Raider' can mean 'each Raider of a given sort', even where that's not specified.

Try these examples:

1) Each Raider is owned by a Kabal.
2) Each Raider owned by a Kabal is owned by a Kabal.
3) Each Raider is customised.
4) Each Raider owned by a Kabal is customised.

I think 1) and 3) refer to all Raiders, while 2) and 4) refer only to a subset of Raiders (those owned by Kabals) and allow for there being other Raiders.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, on the basis of what you've said in earlier posts, you seem to think that 1) refers to all Raiders (which alone suffices to make it puzzling how you get what you call 'specificity' from the word 'each'), making it different in meaning from 2), and yet that 3) refers only to Raiders that are owned by Kabals, making it equivalent to 4).

However, given that the structure of 3) and 4) is analogous to that of 1) and 2), I don't see how 1) and 2) can differ in meaning while 3) and 4) are according to you the same.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

Clearly they're not the same sentence. I don't think the second is even grammatical, so it's difficult to know what it means.

 
The second is grammatical.
If you want to claim it is not please back that up so at least I can defend the accusation.
Also, pay attention to how the commas are used in the first sentence - if that sentence is grammatical, so is the second.

I don't see why the onus is on me to prove that it's not grammatical. Maybe ungrammatical isn't quite the right term though - perhaps it's just non-sensical or, at least, awkwardly phrased.

I don't think the fact that all you've done is move a phrase between commas establishes that it's a well-formed sentence, unless you also think that this one is: "Each teddy, by the girl that owns it, bear is given ribbons".

One problem with the sentence (as you had it, "By the girl that owns it, each teddy bear is given ribbons") is that the reference of 'it' is not clear, at least not until later on. However, if I had to attach meaning to the sentence then, yes, I think I would take it to mean the same as the other one you gave.

Let me know if you think that creates problems for me, but please don't forget to respond about my sentences 1-4 above.

Ben_S wrote:

But specificity and individuality seem to be different things here. I say 'each' refers to all of the things considered individually, i.e. one-by-one, which can be contrasted with 'every', which may refer to all of them en masse or collectively. That's what I'm happy to call 'individuality', but it's very different from what you have in mind - both still refers to all items in the given category (and the category given here is Raiders).

Except each tends to be more specifically driven via category whilst every is more universally inclusive. That's what I mean by specificity - make sense?

Ben_S wrote:

You seem to suggest that 'each Raider' can mean 'each Raider of a given sort', even where that's not specified.

No, I am suggesting that the sentence, because it introduces the idea of a specific sort, specifies the grouping.

Ben_S wrote:

1) Each Raider is owned by a Kabal.
2) Each Raider owned by a Kabal is owned by a Kabal.
3) Each Raider is customised.
4) Each Raider owned by a Kabal is customised.

I think 1) and 3) refer to all Raiders, while 2) and 4) refer only to a subset of Raiders (those owned by Kabals) and allow for there being other Raiders.

As stand alone sentences, I would agree with you.
I would also note that 2 and 4 are more akin to the sentence in question than 1 and 3 are.

Ben_S wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but, on the basis of what you've said in earlier posts, you seem to think that 1) refers to all Raiders (which alone suffices to make it puzzling how you get what you call 'specificity' from the word 'each')

Yes, I would think that.
Because the sentence doesn't contain a grouping it is not being used to apply specificity of that grouping.
Also, 'is owned' is a different meaning than 'owned by' in the way it is used here and in the sentence we are debating about.

Ben_S wrote:

However, given that the structure of 3) and 4) is analogous to that of 1) and 2), I don't see how 1) and 2) can differ in meaning while 3) and 4) are according to you the same.

I would not say 3 and 4 are the same. I wasn't aware I'd advanced that idea.

Ben_S wrote:

I don't see why the onus is on me to prove that it's not grammatical.

Is the onus on me to prove it is? Your rebuttal to the point was 'this is not grammatical' I submit that, when used as a rebuttal, it is upon you to prove the stance. You disagree? Do I need to prove a negative then? That seems more difficult and awkward as a request.

Ben_S wrote:

Maybe ungrammatical isn't quite the right term though - perhaps it's just non-sensical or, at least, awkwardly phrased.

It is *not* nonsensical. I dispute that.
I will agree it is awkwardly phrased, but that's hardly a crime. The original sentence in question is awkwardly phrased - if we use that to rule out things as being worth something then I think I have already triumphed here

Ben_S wrote:

I don't think the fact that all you've done is move a phrase between commas establishes that it's a well-formed sentence, unless you also think that this one is: "Each teddy, by the girl that owns it, bear is given ribbons".

 
There is a rather dramatic difference between splitting up a pair of words that serve in the sentence as a single noun and subject and doing what I did.
I will agree with you that your sentence is grammatically incorrect. That said, if you do the proper use of grammer and put 'teddy bear' all on the left side of the preposition, then it all works fine.

Ben_S wrote:

One problem with the sentence (as you had it, "By the girl that owns it, each teddy bear is given ribbons") is that the reference of 'it' is not clear, at least not until later on. However, if I had to attach meaning to the sentence then, yes, I think I would take it to mean the same as the other one you gave.

A sentence not being complete until you finish reading the sentence is not a crime or a failure in a sentence. It's normal. Most sentences don't make sense until you finish reading them. If you disagree then I could suggest-

But clearly the above is probably a normal sentence
I'm sorry, that rebuttal is a stretch.

By 'same as the other one you gave' you mean to tell me that you read the sentence 'By the girl that owns it, each teddy bear is given ribbons' as meaning all teddy bears in the world are owned by girls? Or simply that all teddy bears owned by girls are given ribbons?

I'm totally with you on the latter, I'm hoping it's not the former.

Ben_S wrote:

Let me know if you think that creates problems for me, but please don't forget to respond about my sentences 1-4 above.

It makes me feel like we hit the brick wall again which is just that we each refuse to apparently be able to grok the other person's usage of the word. I'll admit I feel like I'm scoring more points in that manner, but suspect you feel vice-versa. Do I feel massively obtuse in how I'm interpreting sentences to you? You do to me, I'm curious if it's coming across from the other side of the looking glass.

I also responded to 1-4 above, maybe that will help - though I did feel like I got miunderstood somewhere along the line.