I am studying square of opposition. Some dogs have fleas is shown in the text as (see bottom left sentence in image)
$\neg \forall x [D_{x} \supset \neg F_{x}]$
Why is it not (notice the negation changed) ?
$\forall x [\neg D_{x} \supset \neg F_{x}]$
Reason 1
Reason I say so is because the second option translates into English pretty well: "Some dogs have fleas" is equivalent to "Not all dogs have not fleas" which is equivalent to "For all X, if x is not dog then x has not fleas" which is what the 2nd option says
As a quick reference, See Tidman mentions english translation in 7.3 that $\forall x [D_{x} \supset F_{x}]$ translates "For all x , if x is a dog then it has fleas"
Reason 2
Secondly $\neg \forall x$ translates into something funny like "For all not x" and messes with the idea of "universe of discourse"
