kabal wyches?

Thor665 wrote:

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?

I get what you mean by specificity now, I just dispute that 'each' implies this kind of specificity. Both 'each' and 'every' refer to all things in a given group, for example:

a) Practice each day
b) Practice every day

Both refer to all of the things in question, here days.

c) Practice each week day
d) Practice every week day

Here the things in question are narrowed down to week days, but both sentences still make sense and still apply to all of the things in question.

What makes you think that 'Each Raider' applies on to some subset of Raiders?

Thor665 wrote:

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.

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')

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.

I don't think there's a way to link to particular posts, but in your post of Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:41 pm you said:
"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?"

Granted this is about the sentence in the Codex, which isn't exactly the same as the sentence 3) here, but all that sentence 3) omits is who does the customising.

Thor665 wrote:

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.

I don't mean to be excessively snarky, because I prefer to keep the debate in the civil terms it's been conducted it up until now, but I could just point out that in your post of Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:42 pm your rebuttal was a similar assertion:

"Also, you have a logical fallacy in your logic example insomuch as point [1] is really just a badly written sentence, and I would have issues with seeing it, much less agreeing with it. And therein lies the fault of the phrase and the tick that doesn't sway me to your logic fully"

Further, I don't see how asking you to prove that something is grammatical amounts to asking you to prove a negative. But as I said in my last point, maybe the problem isn't ungrammaticality. The problem is that it's not clear to me what meaning, if any, the sentence has.

Thor665 wrote:

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.

My objection wasn't that you need to read the whole sentence to know what the whole sentence means. That, I agree, is normal. My objection is that you come to an 'it' with no idea what that refers to. This is not normal.

I take it you'll agree that 'Each teddy bear is given ribbons by the girl that owns it' is more standard that 'By the girl that owns it, each teddy bear is given ribbons'. I would say it's actually hard to be sure what the latter means; but if I'm to assign any meaning to it then it would be that it's the same as the sentence before.

Ben_S wrote:

What makes you think that 'Each Raider' applies on to some subset of Raiders?

Because the sentence then applies the subset of 'Kabal that owns it'

Just because it doesn't always apply the specificity, does not prove that it always doesn't

Ben_S wrote:

Granted this is about the sentence in the Codex, which isn't exactly the same as the sentence 3) here, but all that sentence 3) omits is who does the customising.

I think you may have discovered you just inferred something.
Also, as noted above, and noted by me multiple times, I consider the inclusion of the mention of the sub group to be important to the sentence.

Ben_S wrote:

I don't mean to be excessively snarky, because I prefer to keep the debate in the civil terms it's been conducted it up until now, but I could just point out that in your post of Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:42 pm your rebuttal was a similar assertion:

"Also, you have a logical fallacy in your logic example insomuch as point [1] is really just a badly written sentence, and I would have issues with seeing it, much less agreeing with it. And therein lies the fault of the phrase and the tick that doesn't sway me to your logic fully"

Would you like me to explain why it was?
You never asked.
I think it's not legit to compare the two instances - I thought you understood and agreed with my point. I would think it would be my responsibility to show that the sentence was badly written if you suggested it was not.

Ben_S wrote:

Further, I don't see how asking you to prove that something is grammatical amounts to asking you to prove a negative. But as I said in my last point, maybe the problem isn't ungrammaticality.

If we agree with that, then I have no issues.

Ben_S wrote:

My objection wasn't that you need to read the whole sentence to know what the whole sentence means. That, I agree, is normal. My objection is that you come to an 'it' with no idea what that refers to. This is not normal.

Can you replace the pronoun with what it refers to and still have the sentence make sense?
The answer is 'yes' and therefore it is a proper sentence.

Ben_S wrote:

I take it you'll agree that 'Each teddy bear is given ribbons by the girl that owns it' is more standard that 'By the girl that owns it, each teddy bear is given ribbons'. I would say it's actually hard to be sure what the latter means; but if I'm to assign any meaning to it then it would be that it's the same as the sentence before.

Well...what is 'it' standing in for? Ribbons? Girl? It's not confusing. Here;
'By the girl that owns each teddy bear, each teddy bear is given ribbons'
This is actually more clunky in language, which is why the pronoun is used, but it showcases that the sentence makes sense.

---

You didn't address my final point, which was one of the more interesting to me considering the state of the current debate, and I felt like 1-4 just went on a sideways adventure of a point of order issue as opposed to interesting meat that would come around to discussing my point. Can I get that addressed next time?

Thor665 wrote:

You didn't address my final point, which was one of the more interesting to me considering the state of the current debate, and I felt like 1-4 just went on a sideways adventure of a point of order issue as opposed to interesting meat that would come around to discussing my point. Can I get that addressed next time?

 
Sorry if I missed an important point, though I'm not sure which bit you refer to. Is it this (the almost final part of your previous post)?
 

Thor665 wrote:

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.

 
If so, I'm afraid the answer is yes, though obviously the feeling is mutual. We're in serious danger at this point that we'll just be repeating ourselves ad infinitum, but I don't see how/why you assume that 'Each Raider' means 'Each Raider owned by a Kabal', just because the sentence later goes on to say something about being owned by Kabals.
 
The 'owned by Kabal' part is a completely separate part of the sentence, telling you who does the customisation. (Indeed, as observed earlier, the actual sentence has 'these craft', referring back to the previous sentence, which doesn't even mention Kabals.) If the author meant 'Each Raider owned by Kabals', then he should have written 'Each Raider owned by Kabals' and not simply 'Each Raider'.
 
Suppose a hotel website says 'Each room has a TV and minibar and double rooms are also en suite'. (This sentence obviously isn't totally analogous to the one under discussion, but I fear if it was too close then we'd just have the same disagreement again.) Here 'each' applies to 'rooms'; that the sentence later talks about double rooms does not mean that the original 'each' refers to double rooms.
 
Or, to return a bit closer to the topic at hand, suppose it was 'Each Raider is customised in the workshops of Commorragh.' This tells us where Raiders get customised, but it's about all Raiders, not only those that get customised in the workshops (for then it wouldn't really be informative).
 
'Each Raider is customised by one of the DE engineers'. This is about who customises them, but still about all Raiders.
 
'Each Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it'. Again, what the latter phrase adds is who does the customising. It's not the same as 'Each Raider that is owned by a Kabal is customised', because changing the position of that clause changes what it applies to and thus the meaning of the sentence. (Another way in which this sentence differs is it doesn't tell you who does the customising.)
 

Thor665 wrote:

Because the sentence then applies the subset of 'Kabal that owns it'

Just because it doesn't always apply the specificity, does not prove that it always doesn't

 
I agree that 'doesn't always X' is not equivalent to, and does not imply, 'always doesn't X'. I'm lost as to your point though. Your interpretation seems to assume that because a 'specificity' is applied to one thing (who does customisation) it must apply to other things (what gets customised), even where this isn't stated.
 
I don't see how you know whether or not a specificity does apply. How do you think the author should have written the sentence, if he meant to express what I think this sentence means?

Ben_S wrote:

If so, I'm afraid the answer is yes, though obviously the feeling is mutual. We're in serious danger at this point that we'll just be repeating ourselves ad infinitum, but I don't see how/why you assume that 'Each Raider' means 'Each Raider owned by a Kabal', just because the sentence later goes on to say something about being owned by Kabals.

Conversely I don't see why you think 'each Raider is customized by the Kabal that owns it' can translate into all Raiders everywhere with no question in your mind.

Ben_S wrote:

The 'owned by Kabal' part is a completely separate part of the sentence, telling you who does the customisation. (Indeed, as observed earlier, the actual sentence has 'these craft', referring back to the previous sentence, which doesn't even mention Kabals.) If the author meant 'Each Raider owned by Kabals', then he should have written 'Each Raider owned by Kabals' and not simply 'Each Raider'.

Conversely, if he meant 'all Raiders are owned by Kabals' he should have said that. I'm the one arguing the sentence is unclear, right ;)You've self-admitted that you are drawing an inference, all I'm saying is my inference has *at least* as much value as yours (and in my opinion more, natch)

Ben_S wrote:

Suppose a hotel website says 'Each room has a TV and minibar and double rooms are also en suite'. (This sentence obviously isn't totally analogous to the one under discussion, but I fear if it was too close then we'd just have the same disagreement again.) Here 'each' applies to 'rooms'; that the sentence later talks about double rooms does not mean that the original 'each' refers to double rooms.

The 'and' would be my stickler for that one.

Ben_S wrote:

Or, to return a bit closer to the topic at hand, suppose it was 'Each Raider is customised in the workshops of Commorragh.' This tells us where Raiders get customised, but it's about all Raiders, not only those that get customised in the workshops (for then it wouldn't really be informative).

"Though each of these craft are customized in the workshops of Commoragh and has some other random non-key part done to it, all have certain key features - "
I would take that to mean all customizations are done in Commoragh.
It's just as informative as the original sentence either way.

Ben_S wrote:

'Each Raider is customised by one of the DE engineers'. This is about who customises them, but still about all Raiders.

Albeit, without limiting language, which I have already agreed would allow 'each' to stand in for 'every'
Though all this says is all the Raiders that are customized are done so by DE, not really that all Raiders are customized.
I would also submit 'a DE engineer' would be a less futzy sentence.

Ben_S wrote:

'Each Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it'. Again, what the latter phrase adds is who does the customising. It's not the same as 'Each Raider that is owned by a Kabal is customised', because changing the position of that clause changes what it applies to and thus the meaning of the sentence.

And my counter to this is that it's coming down to an uncertainly worded clause wherein there is a legitimate question as to what it means. Just like the Teddy Bears, it *might* intend that meaning, or it might intend the one I proffer - but it isn't clear cut.

Ben_S wrote:

I agree that 'doesn't always X' is not equivalent to, and does not imply, 'always doesn't X'. I'm lost as to your point though. Your interpretation seems to assume that because a 'specificity' is applied to one thing (who does customisation) it must apply to other things (what gets customised), even where this isn't stated.

Conversely, though it is equally not stated you have decided - yadda, yadda. I think we're getting closer to the core point again though.
You have agreed you draw an inference from the sentence.
I have agreed the inference could be drawn, but countered that my inference is just as valid.
Do you still dispute that?
Did you ever dispute that?
You appear to.

Ben_S wrote:

I don't see how you know whether or not a specificity does apply. How do you think the author should have written the sentence, if he meant to express what I think this sentence means?

Well, he should have written it not in the format he chose.
But if he insisted on the format then 'every' would pretty much destroy my ability to hold the stance I do, and would then have carried through his meaning if that was his goal.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

The 'owned by Kabal' part is a completely separate part of the sentence, telling you who does the customisation. (Indeed, as observed earlier, the actual sentence has 'these craft', referring back to the previous sentence, which doesn't even mention Kabals.) If the author meant 'Each Raider owned by Kabals', then he should have written 'Each Raider owned by Kabals' and not simply 'Each Raider'.

Conversely, if he meant 'all Raiders are owned by Kabals' he should have said that. I'm the one arguing the sentence is unclear, right ;)You've self-admitted that you are drawing an inference, all I'm saying is my inference has *at least* as much value as yours (and in my opinion more, natch)

You just said you're drawing an inference too. I don't see why that should be regarded as an 'admission'. Not everything has to be spelled out in the most explicit terms possible.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

'Each Raider is customised by one of the DE engineers'. This is about who customises them, but still about all Raiders.

Albeit, without limiting language, which I have already agreed would allow 'each' to stand in for 'every'
Though all this says is all the Raiders that are customized are done so by DE, not really that all Raiders are customized.

I disagree with your final sentence, but this is just to repeat the same disagreement with respect to a different sentence, which is what I thought would happen if too close an analogy was presented.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

'Each Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it'. Again, what the latter phrase adds is who does the customising. It's not the same as 'Each Raider that is owned by a Kabal is customised', because changing the position of that clause changes what it applies to and thus the meaning of the sentence.

And my counter to this is that it's coming down to an uncertainly worded clause wherein there is a legitimate question as to what it means.

To which I say it is perfectly clear what the clause applies to in the sentence.

I granted at the outset that this might not be what the author meant or intended, because he might have expressed himself poorly, but what the sentence means seems perfectly clear to me.

I'm pleased, at least, that your position is merely that it's unclear, rather than that it's clearly opposite. But I think that if the author had wanted to express what you take the sentence to mean he could easily have modified the sentence to (clearly) say that. You're not very forthcoming on how he should have written the sentence if he meant what I take it to mean. Should he have said "Each Raider, and by the way I really do mean all of them here, is customised by the Kabal that owns it"?

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

I agree that 'doesn't always X' is not equivalent to, and does not imply, 'always doesn't X'. I'm lost as to your point though. Your interpretation seems to assume that because a 'specificity' is applied to one thing (who does customisation) it must apply to other things (what gets customised), even where this isn't stated.

Conversely, though it is equally not stated you have decided - yadda, yadda. I think we're getting closer to the core point again though.
You have agreed you draw an inference from the sentence.
I have agreed the inference could be drawn, but countered that my inference is just as valid.
Do you still dispute that?
Did you ever dispute that?
You appear to.

Yes, I do dispute that. I thought we were in agreement that 'each' refers to all things of a given sort. And my claim is that the sort here is simply Raiders, because that's the sort that is referred to following the 'each'.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

I don't see how you know whether or not a specificity does apply. How do you think the author should have written the sentence, if he meant to express what I think this sentence means?

Well, he should have written it not in the format he chose.
But if he insisted on the format then 'every' would pretty much destroy my ability to hold the stance I do, and would then have carried through his meaning if that was his goal.

[/quote]

I actually find this somewhat puzzling.

You think "Each Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it" is unclear, but "Every Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it" would be unambiguous? Why couldn't the latter also be referring only to the Raiders that are owned by Kabals? I would have expected you to regard the two as equivalent.

Ben_S wrote:

You just said you're drawing an inference too. I don't see why that should be regarded as an 'admission'. Not everything has to be spelled out in the most explicit terms possible.

Not my point, so sure, I agree with yours.

Ben_S wrote:

I disagree with your final sentence, but this is just to repeat the same disagreement with respect to a different sentence, which is what I thought would happen if too close an analogy was presented.

Agreed - I did the same thing with the teddy bears.

Ben_S wrote:

To which I say it is perfectly clear what the clause applies to in the sentence.

Agreed! Raiders owned by Kabals, right

Ben_S wrote:

I granted at the outset that this might not be what the author meant or intended, because he might have expressed himself poorly, but what the sentence means seems perfectly clear to me.

You see, that's back to the core issue again. You agree you are drawing an inference, yet dispute my inference of having the possibility to exist (and, as noted, I think mine makes more sense due to the meaning of the word). That's what I disagree with, the concept that it is clear cut.

Ben_S wrote:

I'm pleased, at least, that your position is merely that it's unclear, rather than that it's clearly opposite.

I never intended to say otherwise.

Ben_S wrote:

But I think that if the author had wanted to express what you take the sentence to mean he could easily have modified the sentence to (clearly) say that.

Just as he could have done with your meaning - which strengthens my position in my opinion. Not yours.

Ben_S wrote:

You're not very forthcoming on how he should have written the sentence if he meant what I take it to mean. Should he have said "Each Raider, and by the way I really do mean all of them here, is customised by the Kabal that owns it"?

I feel I explicitly stated this already.
I indicated he should have used a less futzy sentence *or* should have used 'every' instead of ;each' because the two words mean different things.
How can I be any more forthcoming?

Ben_S wrote:

Yes, I do dispute that. I thought we were in agreement that 'each' refers to all things of a given sort.

It certainly can.

Ben_S wrote:

And my claim is that the sort here is simply Raiders, because that's the sort that is referred to following the 'each'.

And my claim is that it is Raiders is part of a phrase including 'owned by a Kabal' and therefore means that.

Ben_S wrote:

I actually find this somewhat puzzling.

You think "Each Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it" is unclear, but "Every Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it" would be unambiguous?

Yes.

Ben_S wrote:

Why couldn't the latter also be referring only to the Raiders that are owned by Kabals? I would have expected you to regard the two as equivalent.

I have never claimed the two words were equivalent. I have indicated that sometimes Each can mean the same as Every, but that it has potential different meanings depending on how it is used. I submit that its current use suggests the less inclusive meaning moreso than the all inclusive meaning. It would be the same as if he had said 'All of these craft' it's less ambiguous because 'all' is, and pardon using the word in the definition, all inclusive. Each has an exclusive nature built into it that makes me look for exclusivity before presuming lack of exclusivity.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

You're not very forthcoming on how he should have written the sentence if he meant what I take it to mean. Should he have said "Each Raider, and by the way I really do mean all of them here, is customised by the Kabal that owns it"?

I feel I explicitly stated this already.
I indicated he should have used a less futzy sentence *or* should have used 'every' instead of ;each' because the two words mean different things.
How can I be any more forthcoming?

Well, for a start, even with the benefit of Google I can only guess from context what 'futzy' means. The question, however, is how he could make the sentence clearer (or less futzy). Simply saying that he should do so doesn't really answer that. (The suggestion that he replace 'each' with 'every' does, though it still puzzles me - I leave addressing that until later.)

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

And my claim is that the sort here is simply Raiders, because that's the sort that is referred to following the 'each'.

And my claim is that it is Raiders is part of a phrase including 'owned by a Kabal' and therefore means that.

But they're not part of the same phrase, or even the same sentence.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

Why couldn't the latter also be referring only to the Raiders that are owned by Kabals? I would have expected you to regard the two as equivalent.

I have never claimed the two words were equivalent. I have indicated that sometimes Each can mean the same as Every, but that it has potential different meanings depending on how it is used. I submit that its current use suggests the less inclusive meaning moreso than the all inclusive meaning. It would be the same as if he had said 'All of these craft' it's less ambiguous because 'all' is, and pardon using the word in the definition, all inclusive. Each has an exclusive nature built into it that makes me look for exclusivity before presuming lack of exclusivity.

So where do you get the idea that 'each' has exclusivity built in to it? Your own earlier definition was that it refers to all the things in a given group (or something like that). Isn't that also what 'every' means?

You can't simply say "Every is customised by the Kabal that owns it" - every what? Whether the sentence begins with 'each' or 'every', a group needs to be specified, and the each/every then refers to all of the things in that group.

The issue is what the given group is. I don't see why you think 'Each' licenses you to read a bit in a totally different part of the sentence (or even a different sentence) as qualifying 'Raiders', while 'Every' does not.

I don't think any of the other examples given have supported such a difference - for instance, the 'practice each day' and 'practice every day' sentences seem to mean the same thing (I don't think you ever explicitly agreed to that, but you didn't dissent either).

Moreover, I think there's a good reason why the author didn't say 'every'. Had he said anything like "Every Raider is owned by a Kabal" (or "Every Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it") then that could be understood as 'There is a Kabal that owns all the Raiders'. That's not the only way to read that sentence but, given how easily that particular inference can be blocked by saying "Each Raider is owned by a Kabal", it would be reasonable to assume that it was intended.

Ben_S wrote:

Well, for a start, even with the benefit of Google I can only guess from context what 'futzy' means. The question, however, is how he could make the sentence clearer (or less futzy).

That would be easy. Simply have a definitive statement that defies interpretation;

"All of these craft are owned by Kabals, and though they customize them each share certain key traits..."

As I have indicated multiple times, I find the sentence in existence to be a poorly put together sentence.

Ben_S wrote:

Simply saying that he should do so doesn't really answer that.

I will admit, I'm not sure what me creating an unambiguous sentence does either.

Ben_S wrote:

But they're not part of the same phrase, or even the same sentence.

Okay...so the pronoun that means 'Raider' is part of the same sentence. Now is my comment valid?

Ben_S wrote:

So where do you get the idea that 'each' has exclusivity built in to it?

From it's definition of meaning 'part of the group, individually, one at a time'

Ben_S wrote:

Your own earlier definition was that it refers to all the things in a given group (or something like that). Isn't that also what 'every' means?

I have certainly never claimed they mean the same thing. I think it's silly to suggest I have.

Ben_S wrote:

The issue is what the given group is.

Agreed.

Ben_S wrote:

I don't see why you think 'Each' licenses you to read a bit in a totally different part of the sentence (or even a different sentence) as qualifying 'Raiders', while 'Every' does not.

I actually am not sure what you're saying here.
Yes...words in a sentence affect and are affected by other words in the sentence - that's the entire concept behind a sentence. I would presume I think I can do this because...that's how the English language works.  

Ben_S wrote:

I don't think any of the other examples given have supported such a difference - for instance, the 'practice each day' and 'practice every day' sentences seem to mean the same thing (I don't think you ever explicitly agreed to that, but you didn't dissent either).

I did explicitly agree to it.
I have also shown sentences about practicing each or every day where the words had different meaning.

Ben_S wrote:

Moreover, I think there's a good reason why the author didn't say 'every'. Had he said anything like "Every Raider is owned by a Kabal" (or "Every Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it") then that could be understood as 'There is a Kabal that owns all the Raiders'.

If you think they are interchangeable words then I think this is an odd concern.
Also, since that is not what the sentence says, it's a meaningless concern.

1. Every craft is customized by its owning Kabal.
2. Each of these craft is customized by its owning Kabal.

You mean to tell me that you think #1 has ambiguous language and you think #2 is totally unambiguous?

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

So where do you get the idea that 'each' has exclusivity built in to it?

From it's definition of meaning 'part of the group, individually, one at a time'

I had thought the issue wasn't really about each/every, but only about what each/every refers to (i.e. all Raiders or only those that are owned by Kabals). But your reason for reading the first word to refer to 'Raiders owned by Kabals' (rather than all Raiders generally) is that the word in question is 'each', rather than 'every' (or 'all'). So, it seems we do need to resolve the difference between each and every.

My claim was that both 'each' and 'every' refer to all members of a given group. The difference between them lies in whether that's all considered collectively ('every') or all considered individually ('each'); but this difference is not the same as your 'specificity', which suggests that we're not necessarily talking about all but only some.

I've been looking for any source that will back you up on this and not found any. In addition to earlier cited sites, I can offer:

1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv110.shtml
“We tend to use each if we are thinking about members of a group individually, and every if we are thinking of them in total. Compare the following:
• We gave each child who came to the party a present. We handed them out one by one.
• We gave every child who came to the party a present We gave them all a present.”

The difference here is the latter could mean something like one big present for all the children as a group, rather than a separate present for each individual child. But the former is not saying that only some of the children got a present - it still means all of them.

2) http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/determiners-and-quantifiers/quantifiers
“We use every or each with a singular noun to mean all:
There was a party in every street. = There were parties in all the streets.
Each child was given a prize. = All the children were given a prize.”

3) http://www.eslmonster.com/article/each-and-every
"Each and every are similar in meaning. It is often possible to use both each or every […]We use each when we think of things separately, one by one […] Each is more usual for a small number […] We use every when we think of things as a group. The meaning is similar to all. […] Every is more usual for a large number.”

4) http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/72899-difference-between-every-each.html
(post two)
“Each person in the class has a chance. >> every person in the class considered individually. Each = individual
Every person in the class has a chance >> all the people in the class as a group. Every = all”

I agree that no one site, even an 'official' one and certainly not a forum, is definitive. But I take the consensus between them to be pretty strong. So far as I can see, none of these sites mention the difference you perceive between 'each' and 'every'. Nor have I come across any others that do.

Can you point to any actual examples of others using or defining the words the way that you do?

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

Your own earlier definition was that it refers to all the things in a given group (or something like that). Isn't that also what 'every' means?

I have certainly never claimed they mean the same thing. I think it's silly to suggest I have.

I didn't claim that you had; I asked. But isn't it what 'every' means? "Every Raider" means "all things in the group 'Raiders'", no? What else does it mean?

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

Moreover, I think there's a good reason why the author didn't say 'every'. Had he said anything like "Every Raider is owned by a Kabal" (or "Every Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it") then that could be understood as 'There is a Kabal that owns all the Raiders'.

If you think they are interchangeable words then I think this is an odd concern.
Also, since that is not what the sentence says, it's a meaningless concern.

1. Every craft is customized by its owning Kabal.
2. Each of these craft is customized by its owning Kabal.

You mean to tell me that you think #1 has ambiguous language and you think #2 is totally unambiguous?

I don't agree that it's a meaningless concern. You suggested that, if the author intended what I think the sentence means, he should have said 'Every'. My response was that, had he said 'Every', it would have changed the possible meaning of the sentence in a different way. Hence, 'each' was a perfectly appropriate word for the meaning I take the sentence to express.

Ben_S wrote:

Can you point to any actual examples of others using or defining the words the way that you do?

Every example you used has specific limiters in the sentence that they apply to.
I feel this works within my usage.

Ben_S wrote:

I didn't claim that you had; I asked. But isn't it what 'every' means? "Every Raider" means "all things in the group 'Raiders'", no? What else does it mean?

Depends how it's used in the sentence. But, taken as a solo phrase I would take 'Every Raider' to mean all Raiders in existence until I saw something that indicated otherwise.

Ben_S wrote:

I don't agree that it's a meaningless concern. You suggested that, if the author intended what I think the sentence means, he should have said 'Every'. My response was that, had he said 'Every', it would have changed the possible meaning of the sentence in a different way. Hence, 'each' was a perfectly appropriate word for the meaning I take the sentence to express.

Do you agree the sentence, as currently written, has multiple meanings?
You seem to think using 'Every' would give it multiple meanings.
Do you think using 'Each' gives it only one possible meaning?

My stance has been that there are multiple possible meanings to the sentence.
If you agree to that then my point is made.
If you don't agree to that, I am curious why if 'every' has multiple meanings if used in that sentence why does 'each' not?

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

Can you point to any actual examples of others using or defining the words the way that you do?

Every example you used has specific limiters in the sentence that they apply to.
I feel this works within my usage.
[...]
But, taken as a solo phrase I would take 'Every Raider' to mean all Raiders in existence until I saw something that indicated otherwise.

I'm not sure what 'specific limiters' you're referring to here. We need to say something like 'Each child' or 'every child', but this doesn't show the difference you allege between 'each' and 'every' - it's true of both of them.

So, when you see "Every Raider is customised" you think 'absent anything to the contrary, this means all of them'. Yet, when you read "Each Raider is customised", it seems your thought is something like 'this probably doesn't mean all of them; I should look out for some specificity later in the sentence.' Is that right?

If this correctly captures your view, then that's what I'm saying is not supported in any of the links that I gave. All of them say that 'each child' refers to all of the children, not all of some subset of the children.

Ben_S wrote:

I didn't claim that you had; I asked. But isn't it what 'every' means? "Every Raider" means "all things in the group 'Raiders'", no? What else does it mean?

Depends how it's used in the sentence.

Thor665 wrote:

Do you agree the sentence, as currently written, has multiple meanings?
You seem to think using 'Every' would give it multiple meanings.
Do you think using 'Each' gives it only one possible meaning?

My stance has been that there are multiple possible meanings to the sentence.
If you agree to that then my point is made.
If you don't agree to that, I am curious why if 'every' has multiple meanings if used in that sentence why does 'each' not?

I'm inclined to answer no and yes respectively to your questions, at least if interpreted (as you seem to have been suggesting all along) that the two interpretations are roughly equally likely. If you said something like there's a 90+% chance that the sentence means what I say but just a small possibility it means something else, then I might be inclined to settle for that.

I do think 'every' could have a meaning that 'each' cannot. To give another example of this:

'I spoke to every person in the room' might mean only that your raised your voice to address the whole group at once. 'I spoke to each person in the room' suggests that you circulated around, to speak to all of them individually - you spoke to Tom, to Dick, to Harry (etc) for all persons, thus you spoke to each of them.

In the latter case, you could certainly still say 'I spoke to every person', hence ambiguity. In the former case, it would at least be unusual to say 'I spoke to each of them' (though perhaps you might say this if you were trying to suggest that your message, though given to all at once, was somehow personal to each or something like this - where each of them might say 'he really spoke to me').

Whatever we think about this though, the possible ambiguity is not the one you're suggesting. My main claim is that both 'every person' and 'each person' signify that you spoke (in some sense) to all persons in the room; neither suggest that the reader should be alert for later signals as to which of the people in the room you spoke to.

Ben_S wrote:

So, when you see "Every Raider is customised" you think 'absent anything to the contrary, this means all of them'. Yet, when you read "Each Raider is customised", it seems your thought is something like 'this probably doesn't mean all of them; I should look out for some specificity later in the sentence.' Is that right?

I would agree with that.

Ben_S wrote:

If this correctly captures your view, then that's what I'm saying is not supported in any of the links that I gave. All of them say that 'each child' refers to all of the children, not all of some subset of the children.

Every single example sentence had a limit to the grouping built into it.

Ben_S wrote:

I'm inclined to answer no and yes respectively to your questions, at least if interpreted (as you seem to have been suggesting all along) that the two interpretations are roughly equally likely. If you said something like there's a 90+% chance that the sentence means what I say but just a small possibility it means something else, then I might be inclined to settle for that.

 

Ben_S wrote:

Whatever we think about this though, the possible ambiguity is not the one you're suggesting. My main claim is that both 'every person' and 'each person' signify that you spoke (in some sense) to all persons in the room; neither suggest that the reader should be alert for later signals as to which of the people in the room you spoke to.

I agree that all Raiders owned by Kabals are customized, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Thor665 wrote:

Ben_S wrote:

If this correctly captures your view, then that's what I'm saying is not supported in any of the links that I gave. All of them say that 'each child' refers to all of the children, not all of some subset of the children.

Every single example sentence had a limit to the grouping built into it.

Where?

'Every child' has a group built in to it: the children. 'Each child' also has the same group built in to it: the children. My claim is that both of these cover all things in that group: all of the children.

Your claim is that where 'each' is used, rather than 'every', this suggests not merely that there is a group (because that's also true when 'every' is used) but a narrower group - that 'each child' does not necessarily mean all of the children, but perhaps only some of them to be specified later.

I don't see any suggestion of that in any of the examples. Here's one of them again:

“We tend to use each if we are thinking about members of a group individually, and every if we are thinking of them in total. Compare the following:
• We gave each child who came to the party a present. We handed them out one by one.
• We gave every child who came to the party a present We gave them all a present.”

Are you telling me that the first bullet point means only some of the children who came to the party got presents? If so, which ones?

I say both of these sentences refer to all the children who came to the party; there's no difference between the scope of 'each' and 'every'. What limit is there to the grouping in the case of 'each' that is not there in the case of 'every'?

'To the party' is the built in limiter.
I submit 'by the Kabal that owns it' is a similar limiter.

But that doesn't show any difference between 'each' and 'every', because it's there in both cases. And both sentences clearly refer to all the children who came to the party.

I submit 'each Raider owned by a Kabal...' or 'every Raider owned by a Kabal...' would be equivalent to 'each/every child who came to the party'. In all cases the specified group follows immediately after each/every and each/every refers to all things in this group. The issue is whether a later reference to owning Kabals is changing the group limits from 'Raiders' to 'Raiders owned by Kabals'.

You believe "Every Raider is customised by the Kabal that owns it" is talking about all Raiders generally, not only those owned by Kabals, even though there's still the same phrase about Kabals later in the sentence. So, you think that there's something about the word 'each' being used (rather than 'every') which directs you to take 'owned by Kabals' as limiting which Raiders are being talked about, when you don't regard it as a 'built in limiter' had the word 'every' been used instead.

Nothing in this example suggests that. From the look of it, you should take 'every child who came to the party' to mean all of them, but think that 'each child who came to the party' might mean only some of them, to be specified later on in the sentence.

Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it.

Does this mean no stores own models, because they are each owned by hobbyists? Also, does it mean no models are unpainted, because it speaks of all the models, ever?

No, it means that the reference of each is implicit from the context - for instance if uttered at a painting competition then each of these models yada yada.

It's like when Vect surveys his fleet of Raiders, whoever's in charge of the fleet can say something like 'each Raider has been fitted with enhanced aethersails as you ordered'. He doesn't mean they went and customised those of other Kabals, he means each Raider in this fleet, because that's what they're talking about.

But I don't see how you get to the assumption that the sentence in the Codex is only about Raiders owned by Kabals. It simply says 'each of these craft', where 'these craft' stands for Raiders, not 'Raiders owned by Kabals'.

To go back to the children case, try this sentence:
'We gave each of the children (who came to the party) a present before they were collected by their parents'.

Note that the party organiser/host could omit the phrase in brackets - as in the above examples, it will usually be clear from context which children they're talking about. But suppose, if you wish, that they make this explicit.

Does that mean only some of the children at the party, i.e. those who were collected by their parents, got presents? Were there other children at the party who were not collected by their parents and who didn't get presents?

Modeling is a popular hobby.
Models are made of cars, planes, and trains.
Each of these model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it.

Conclusion - all models are owned by hobbyists and are painted?

Not quite clear what 'these' applies to in the third sentence (i.e. "Each of these model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it") but I think it will be false whatever, since not all hobbyists paint their models, so it doesn't seem problematic to suppose it also has other false implications.

You didn't try discussing my sentence: 'We gave each of the children (who came to the party) a present before they were collected by their parents'.

This tells you that each of the children got a present. It also tells you that each of them was given this before they were collected by their parents. Therefore, each of them must have been collected by their parents. A child who wasn't collected by his/her parents can't have been given a present before being so collected, and the possibility that they weren't given a present is ruled out (we're told they did each get given one), so they must each have been collected by their parents. Agreed?

Ben_S wrote:

Not quite clear what 'these' applies to in the third sentence (i.e. "Each of these model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it") but I think it will be false whatever, since not all hobbyists paint their models, so it doesn't seem problematic to suppose it also has other false implications.

What if it's an unequivocal proven fact that all hobbyists paint every single model they own.
Does then the sentence mean that all models in existence are painted and owned by hobbyists?

None are unpainted?
None are at  factory?
None are at a store?
None are owned by non-hobbyists?

And I submit 'these models' is equally clear to 'these craft'.
I dunno - what's confusing about it, maybe we can clarify that?

Thor665 wrote:

Modeling is a popular hobby. Models are made of cars, planes, and trains. Each of these model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it.

The third sentence could just have said 'Each model is...' The fact that it says of these suggests it's referring to some particular models, but it's not clear which.

It certainly doesn't seem to refer to each model owned by a hobbyist though, since 'these' is 'backwards looking' (i.e. it suggests some group already specified, not a group to be specified).

Perhaps it means each model car, each model plane, and each model train, since those were the examples given in the previous sentence. (Of course, you can still ask your question about model cars only.)

In any case, it wouldn't mean that there were no unpainted models in factories/shops. The sentence doesn't tell you that each model has already been painted by an owning hobbyist; it describes what happens generally.

So if I were to change the last sentence to 'Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it' you would then take the three sentences to mean that all models (or at least all car, plane, and train models) were owned, were owned by hobbyists, and were painted?

That seems to be what it says (subject to my earlier point that not all of them are yet owned/painted).

Why, what would you take that sentence to mean?

Why do you take that sentence to be 'something that happens generally' and the one in the Codex to be 'absolutely happens and happens to all'?

I didn't say there were any exceptions, only that it doesn't mean all models are already owned and painted: the point was about the tense.

Suppose I ask you to explain the rules of American football. You may say something like 'Each game starts with one team kicking the ball to the other team'. This is compatible with their being games not yet started.

My point was that 'Each model is painted...' can similarly be understood as a description of what happens (has happened or will happen) to each model; thus, it's not incompatible with their being models in factories/stores that aren't yet painted, provided that they will be bought and painted in due course.