While I was trying to make a post yesterday, and then again today, the post was disallowed and I got the following message:
All of the required fields are not filled in
All the fields were filled in as far as I could see, so once the horror at not being able to post subsided (and the problem was overcome by logging out and logging back in again), I fell to wondering about the above curious message.
Surely it says, however clumsily, that all the fields are empty, while what it was trying to say was that some of the fields had not been filled in. (As they all had been filled in, it's difficult to be sure.) So why not say "Not all of the fields are filled in." Is this illogicality common among computer architectonical types? Or is it more widespread and I've just never noticed it before?
It's probably more likely that one or more of the packets of data sent over the Internet from your PC to the AWAD server got corrupted. And I don't think the error-checking in the Board software is very sophisticated. It looked for something, couldn't find it and fired back an error message which would have been selected from a limited range of available messages.
Even though I am not really a computer freak, I beg to differ here: All of the required fields are not filled in seems to me a more elegant way of saying Not all of the required fields are filled in. Otherwise it would say: None of the required fields are filled in.
ooh, afraid I can't agree with you there Werner - I'm with you, Bingley. It is a question of how easily we can recognise where the phrasal clauses break down: does it parse as
“[All {of the required fields} are not] filled in?” or “All of the {required fields} are not filled in?” or “[All of the required] fields are {not filled in}?” or “All {of the required fields} are [not filled in]?”
or indeed some other possible variation!
Clearly the intention was to state that “Of the fields requiring completion, not all have been filled in”, but IMHO the actual text used represents an awkward displacement and clefting of the not and all, which just serves to introduce a degree of ambiguity: English word order is so important to our pattern recognition and syntactical emphasis since we got rid of all the other clutter We tend to pack the new lexical parcels at the beginning of sentences to give them prominence, so the sentence as constructed has the effect of highlighting the “ALL” rather than the “NOT”, which works against the required sense to be conveyed.
By contrast, we can find no possible ambiguity in the alternative phrasing of:
{Not all of the} {required fields} are {filled in}
because we will have all encountered many versions of analogous phrasing, such as
So why not say "Not all of the fields are filled in." Is this illogicality common among computer architectonical types? What's wrong with "Please fill in ALL the blanks."
Which of the above two statements would you choose to indicated that not a single house had been painted?
yeahbut®
that ain't the steenkin' point! Which one do you choose to say that some houses have been painted, but not all of the houses have been painted, and what is more some of the unpainted houses are *required to be painted....?
An example (not original) or the difficulty of precise phrasing:
From the Minutes of a Borough Council Meeting: Councillor Trafford took exception to the proposed notice at the entrance of South Park: ‘No dogs must be brought to this Park except on a lead.’ He pointed out that this order would not prevent an owner from releasing his pets, or pet, from a lead when once safely inside the Park. The Chairman (Colonel Vine): What alternative wording would you propose, Councillor? Councillor Trafford: ‘Dogs are not allowed in this Park without leads.’ Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, I object. The order should be addressed to the owners, not to the dogs. Councillor Trafford: That is a nice point. Very well then: ‘Owners of dogs are not allowed in the Park unless they keep them on leads.’ Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, I object. Strictly speaking, this would prevent me as a dog-owner from leaving my dog in the back-garden at home and walking with Mrs. Hogg across the Park. Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that our legalistic friend be asked to redraft the notice himself. Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, since Councillor Trafford finds it so difficult to improve on my original wording, I accept. ‘Nobody without his dog on a lead is allowed in this Park.’ Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I object. Strictly speaking, this notice would prevent me, as a citizen, who owns no dog, from walking in the Park without first acquiring one. Councillor Hogg (with some warmth): Very simply, then: ‘Dogs must be led in this Park.’ Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I object: this reads as if it were a general injunction to the Borough to lead their dogs in the Park. Councillor Hogg interposed a remark for which he was called to order; upon his withdrawing it, it was directed to be expunged from the Minutes. The Chairman: Councillor Trafford, Councillor Hogg has had three tries; you have had only two … Councillor Trafford: ‘All dogs must be kept on leads in this Park.’ The Chairman: I see Councillor Hogg rising quite rightly to raise another objection. May I anticipate him with another amendment: ‘All dogs in the Park must be kept on the lead.’
This draft was put to the vote and carried unanimously, with two abstentions.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
We tend to pack the new lexical parcels at the beginning of sentences to give them prominence, so the sentence as constructed has the effect of highlighting the “ALL” rather than the “NOT”, which works against the required sense to be conveyed.
