Mỗi versus Mọi

Both mỗi and mọi are often translated as every, but they organize a set differently. Mỗi directs attention to the members one by one and readily pairs a separate share, time, or result with each member. Mọi presents unrestricted or exhaustive coverage of the relevant kind: no eligible member is left out.

Vietnamese makes this contrast through separate quantifier words and sentence structure, not through singular–plural agreement or determiner inflection. This page keeps từng separate: although từng also individuates members, it often adds deliberate sequencing or item-by-item attention and is treated on Từng and Distributive Sequencing.

The core contrast

Compare a distribution plan with a general policy:

The first sentence creates a person-to-task pairing. The second places the attendance requirement over all people in the context. English can use every in both situations, so translation alone does not choose the Vietnamese form.

Mỗi: one member or unit at a time

Mỗi + noun phrase is distributive. The noun is commonly a person, time unit, measure, or countable item. A classifier appears when the noun phrase would naturally require one: mỗi cuốn sách, mỗi chiếc xe, mỗi con mèo. With familiar human and time nouns, forms such as mỗi người, mỗi ngày, and mỗi lần are normal.

The distributed object can be stated compactly without an overt verb in schedules and allocations: mỗi người một việc, mỗi bàn bốn ghế, mỗi tuần hai buổi. This is a productive ratio pattern, not an incomplete copy of an English sentence.

In mỗi ngày một tốt hơn, the repeated unit provides successive points on a scale. The pattern is often expressive and means “better with each passing day.” Ordinary ngày càng tốt hơn presents the same general trend without foregrounding the individual days.

Mọi: exhaustive or unrestricted coverage

Mọi + noun phrase ranges over all contextually relevant members or over possible instances. It is common in general statements, rules, formal notices, and fixed phrases such as mọi lúc mọi nơi “at all times and in all places.” It is neutral in conversation, while compounds such as mọi trường hợp are especially common in (formal) and (academic) prose.

Đều is frequent when a plural or universally quantified subject shares a predicate. In mọi hồ sơ đều phải nộp, mọi establishes the set and đều explicitly distributes the requirement across it. Đều may be omitted where the scope is already clear, especially in concise rules, but it is not a determiner and cannot simply replace mọi before a noun.

There is also a lexical difference between mọi người “everyone/people generally” and tất cả mọi người “absolutely everyone.” Cả nhóm refers to the group in its entirety, whereas mọi người quantifies its human members. These meanings overlap in some contexts but are not built identically.

Scope, negation, and intended exceptions

Quantifier position matters most with negation. Không phải mọi người đều đồng ý means “Not everyone agrees”: at least one exception exists. By contrast, Mọi người đều không đồng ý normally means that everyone fails to agree—that is, nobody agrees in the relevant group.

The first places negation outside universal scope; the second places the negative predicate under the universal. In careful (formal) writing, prefer không phải…đều… for “not all” because it makes the existence of exceptions explicit.

With mỗi, the predicate is evaluated for each member. Mỗi sinh viên không nộp một bài is difficult because negation, distribution, and the object numeral compete for scope. Say exactly what you mean: Không phải sinh viên nào cũng nộp bài “Not every student submitted” or Mỗi sinh viên đều không được nộp quá một bài “Each student may not submit more than one paper.”

Relation to comparison

Quantifiers choose the set over which a predicate holds; comparison words describe positions on a scale. They can combine without replacing one another.

Here mỗi phòng distributes the comparison over individual rooms, đều confirms shared predication, hơn phòng cũ supplies one standard, and nhất selects an extreme within an understood set. If two rooms are bằng nhau, neither outranks the other on the relevant dimension; if one is kém sáng hơn is attempted, the scale is poorly formed—use kém sáng or ít sáng hơn depending on meaning.

This map keeps neighboring constructions distinct:

Dialogue: changing the allocation

Mọi người đều trực tối nay would put tonight's duty on everyone. Mỗi người trực một tối distributes different duty nights across individuals. The choice changes the schedule, not just the style. Cả hai totals a two-person set, while cũng adds their agreement to the information already given.

Common Mistakes

1. Using mọi for a one-to-one allocation

Mỗi establishes the member-by-member pairing required by per.

2. Treating đều as a noun determiner

Mọi quantifies the noun phrase; đều distributes the following predicate over that set.

3. Adding a copula to a comparative predicate

Vietnamese property words predicate directly. Đều, not là, marks shared predication here.

4. Translating than as an extra word

One hơn links the gradable predicate to its standard.

5. Losing the “not every” scope

Put không phải outside the universal frame to preserve the exceptions.

Key Takeaways

• Choose mỗi for separate members, allocations, rates, and repeated units.
• Choose mọi for exhaustive or unrestricted coverage of a relevant class.
• Đều distributes a predicate; it does not replace mỗi or mọi before a noun.
• Use không phải mọi…đều… for “not every/not all.”
• Comparison words and quantifiers have different jobs and can occur together in one sentence.