In a description of David Hume, examples of a priori and a posteriori are given:
a posteriori: "Dogs are carnivores"
a priori: "Bachelors are unmarried"
I am having trouble differentiating between the two statements. "Bachelors are unmarried" is a priori because I know that the definition of Bachelor is unmarried man. But what if I am perfectly versed in the English language, but have, for whatever reason, never encountered the word Bachelor. I do not know that a Bachelor is unmarried. In order for me to find out if a Bachelor is unmarried I must make an observation (like opening a dictionary.) Likewise for "Dogs are carnivores", I know that dogs also eat other stuff apart from meat so I don't need to make an observation, which would mean the statement is for me a priori.
So have I misunderstood the difference between a priori and a posteriori, or are these terms dependent on the individual's already acquired knowledge? Can a statement be a priori for one person and a posteriori for another person?