I think that the English sentence
Everyone admires someone who works hard.
...has two plausible, but non-equivalent, translations into predicate logic. Here they are:
$$ \forall x \, \forall y \, (Wy \rightarrow Axy )$$ $$ \forall x \, \exists y \, (Wy \; \wedge \; Axy )$$
...where $Wy$ says that "$y$ works hard" and $Axy$ says that "$x$ admires $y$".
The first translation interprets the original sentence as saying that every person $x$ admires any person $y$ who works hard. In other words: working hard guarantees universal admiration.
The second translation, on the other hand, interprets the original sentence as saying that, for every person $x$ there is at least one person $y$ such that (1) $y$ works hard and (2) $x$ admires $y$. IOW, it reads the original sentence as asserting the (rather curious) fact that not only each person admires a non-empty collection of people, but that among these objects of admiration there always happens to be at least one person who works hard.
I find the first interpretation far more natural than the second one, hence I was shocked to discover that my textbook mentions only the second one.
Neither I nor the author of my textbook is a native speaker of English, so I thought I'd ask for other opinions.
If my analysis is correct, is this particular source of ambiguity well known? IOW, does it have a name that one could Google for?
BTW, my preferred translation (i.e. the first one) derives from common colloquial expressions of the form
You have to admire someone who $Z$.
...where $Z$ stands for a conduct or deed that is so laudable that it simply renders admiration unavoidable, so much so, in fact, that one could safely assert the universal rule:
Everyone admires someone who $Z$.
Granted, this interpretation becomes less and less compelling in the measure that $Z$ becomes unimpressive. E.g.
Everyone admires someone who goes to work after highschool in order to put his younger siblings through college.
...sounds to me like it can admit only the first translation, whereas
Everyone admires someone who has ten toes.
...sounds to me absurd enough to admit either translation.
The case of $Z$ = "works hard", may be somewhere in-between. (After all, there people who rather look down on hard work as a sign of stupidity.)