I'm grateful for Allen Stairs' response to question 5821, but he, like Richard Heck and Stephen Maitzen when answering question 5792, ASSUMES that words like "all" have the same meaning in everyday English as they have when used by logicians. That's what seems very strange to me. At least, everyday "all" is ambiguous. Professors Stairs, Heck and Maitzen believe that "all the strawberries he has" always means "all the strawberries he may have", and never "all the strawberries he does have". But look at the latter example ("does have"): you're still using the word "all", but here it is clearly said that he has some strawberries. Why can't that happen (in the right context) with "all the strawberries he has"?
By the way, in several Romance languages, there is a difference between (e.g., in Portuguese) "todos os morangos que tem" (indicative) and "todos os morangos que tenha" (subjunctive). Both can be translated as "all the strawberries s/he has", but the first sentence indicates that he (or she) does have some strawberries, and the second sentence says nothing about that. If you need to make the difference clear in English, you'll say "all the strawberries he does have" vs. "all the strawberries he may have". You have to have a special reason to use the subjunctive form (the one that does not imply that he has some strawberries: "all the strawberries he may have") when you're talking about some¬thing you know (whether he has strawberries or not), because in that case you're explicitly refusing to give some relevant information. In English, too, I suppose, when the speaker knows what he's talking about, there must be a special reason for someone hearing him to interpret "all the strawberries he has" as "all the strawberries he may have". Without such reason, it means "all the strawberries he does have".
At least I think you should agree that "all" is, in English, ambiguous.