Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
all, all the, and all of the
English answer:
All acceptable, with exceptions
Added to glossary by
Fuad Yahya
Aug 3, 2003 02:00
20 yrs ago
2 viewers *
English term
United States
Search HKLNA!
Native in: English 
Works in: German to English, Japanese to English, French to English, and 3 more.
"all" vs "all of"
English
Art/Literary
Linguistics
Grammar
Below is a sentence taken from an article that I am writing. I would greatly appreciated your commenting on the use of "all" and "all of" as alternative means of expressing the same idea. Specifically, which is more correct "all the governments" or "all of the governments".
The United States can never hope to bring down all the governments that indirectly support terror through their oppressive regimes, and working with these governments to eliminate organized terror can only serve to nurture the soil in which they take root.
The United States can never hope to bring down all the governments that indirectly support terror through their oppressive regimes, and working with these governments to eliminate organized terror can only serve to nurture the soil in which they take root.
Responses
| 5 +8 | the same |
Fuad Yahya
|
| 5 +1 | all OF the governments |
Daniel Mencher
|
| 5 +1 | I know the question has been graded now... |
John Bowden
|
| 5 -1 | Both are correct... |
John Bowden
|
| 2 | all governments |
AlwaysMoving
|
Change log
Dec 11, 2005 07:14: Fuad Yahya changed "Field" from "Other" to "Art/Literary"
Jan 9, 2006 07:24: Fuad Yahya changed "Level" from "Non-PRO" to "PRO"
Responses
+8
6 mins
Selected
the same
"All of the governments that indirectly support terror" is the full, standard expression. "All the governemnts that indirectly support terror" and even "all governemnts that indirectly support terror" are commonly used and quite acceptable abbreviated forms, although some may frown upon the last one or sense a hint of indefiniteness about it.
The only time when you cannot use the abbreviated form is when you have a pronoun. You cannot say "all us." It has to be "all of us."
The only time when you cannot use the abbreviated form is when you have a pronoun. You cannot say "all us." It has to be "all of us."
Reference:
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Disclaimer One: However disappointing it may be for some, I do not see the United Kingdom and the United States as the sole standards of the English language in our great and troubled world. Therefore I will try not to render judgment here with this dichotomy in mind. I will also try to avoid such judgment in the future, as I too have been guilty of it in the past.
Comment: It is my sincere hope that I am sufficiently known my on the ProZ.com bulletin board for not riding with the heard unless, I truly believe that it is going in the best direction possible.
Acknowledgments: Firstly, I would like to thank Dan for promoting the discussion to the extent that he did. Certainly it is in the spirit of ardent debate that many ideas are often generated. Secondly, I would like to thank Fuad for his continued support, as he is often there when others are not to help me find answers to troubling questions.
Judgment: Grammarians are both a boon and a bane. They are a boon because they provide rigor and clarity to non-native speakers whose absence would make the acquisition of second languages nearly impossible for all but the most needy. They are a bane because they believe that language is wholly logical and they seek as a consequence to force rules on linguistic patterns for which factors other than logic are primarily responsible -- namely, culture, phonetic habit, social prestige, etc.
Yes, Shakespeare may have been wrong from the point of view of a modern grammarian, but it is difficult to believe that one could become so popular in his time without having written in a language that was understood and spoken by most. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that his writings have not influenced the way we write today. The examples that Fuad provided were both clear and convincing and the arguments against them, although grammatically forceful, lingistically stilted.
Caution: That one not misunderstand a rejection of good grammar as a rejection of good language. The rule of good language is structural consistency, whether it be in the form of grammatical rules, idiomatic phrases, or reoccurring patterns.
Admission: I completely overlooked the possibility of "all governments", when I posted my question and am thankful that it was addressed in the discussion. My preference for "all the governments" is ironically grammatical in nature, as the governments in question are well defined by the phrase which follows.
In closing thanks to everyone for your effort, interest, and enlightenment. That ALL OF US have benefitted!"
+1
3 mins
Daniel Mencher
United States
United States
Native in English
&
English
Specializes in field
United States
Native in: English
Works in: zzz Other zzz to English, Spanish to English, English, and 8 more.
all OF the governments
"All" in this case is a pronoun, and so to clarify it with "the government", you need to make "the government" a prepositional object by using the preposition "of".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 02:09:12 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Nouns can be used like adjectives sometimes, but those are separate cases. If \"all\" was describing \"the governments\", then the situation would be different. But, in this case, \"all\" is the pronoun, and \"the governments\", even though it is more specific and the focus of the point you\'re trying to make, is grammatically nothing more than the clarifier, and so the phrase must be written as \"all of the governments\" with the preposition \"of\" and \"the governments\" acting as the prepositional object.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 02:13:52 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Of course, I should add that \"all the governments\" would be easily understood, and if you remove the definite article (\"the\"), then you can correctly say \"all governments\", but if you want to follow the rules of grammar and not use a different phrase than one of the ones upon which you had originally decided, then \"all of the governments\" is that which you should use.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 17:47:49 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
To respond to Fuad Yahya\'s response to my \"disagree\" to his answer below:
First of all, Shakespeare could have been wrong; after all, he invented thousands of words, which means at the time he couldn\'t think of what to say so he made them up out of nowhere - they very easily could have been nonsense to the native speaker at the time.
Second of all, Shakespeare was a very famous and well-established writer. He might have taken literary licence.
Third of all, Shakespeare lived four hundred years ago. The language was different then, and the rules of grammar very easily could have been different. In fact, I don\'t think that the English language even had a set of rules of grammar then. I know that Ben Jonson wrote the first Dictionary of the English Language about 50 years later (give or take a few years), and the first council of people who met to determine proper English congressed at about the same time. Yes, I\'m positive, it was the middle of the 1600\'s, and Shakespeare had died already.
So there goes your argument using one of Shakespeare\'s famous lines. ANYONE ELSE!!!!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 23:08:34 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Let me just say, I wish to apologize to all of those who feel taken aback by the aggressive attitude I\'ve taken on this particular querry. I\'ve given strong responses to those who have disagreed with me throughout the page. It\'s just that I feel very adament about grammar, and have always prided myself on my knowledge of it, especially of my native English grammar, since I live in the States and almost nobody here, especially by my hometown, speaks, knows, or even cares about correct grammar. So, since I feel very strongly about it, I tend to lash out at those who I feel to be wrong. Please, no offense is intended. Thanks for bearing with me!!!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-05 22:11:42 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
...and will probably never improve. Also, when I said \"If \'all\' was defining the governments\", \'all\' was actually the shortened form of \' the word \"all\" \' (rarely anyone feels the need to write out the whole thing anymore) and so is treated as a singular. If I was actually referring to a group of people, then \'were\' would have been the correct verb. However, \'was\' was the correct one since it was one quoted word.
Anyway, the point is moot since the answer has been chosen already. I appreciate your advice and explanation. If you don\'t mind, would you be so kind as to tell me the ISBN number of that book, \' \"An Advanced English Grammar\" by Christophersen and Sandved\', or any other identifying code so I can get a copy? Thanks.
Stay well.
-Dan
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 02:09:12 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Nouns can be used like adjectives sometimes, but those are separate cases. If \"all\" was describing \"the governments\", then the situation would be different. But, in this case, \"all\" is the pronoun, and \"the governments\", even though it is more specific and the focus of the point you\'re trying to make, is grammatically nothing more than the clarifier, and so the phrase must be written as \"all of the governments\" with the preposition \"of\" and \"the governments\" acting as the prepositional object.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 02:13:52 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Of course, I should add that \"all the governments\" would be easily understood, and if you remove the definite article (\"the\"), then you can correctly say \"all governments\", but if you want to follow the rules of grammar and not use a different phrase than one of the ones upon which you had originally decided, then \"all of the governments\" is that which you should use.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 17:47:49 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
To respond to Fuad Yahya\'s response to my \"disagree\" to his answer below:
First of all, Shakespeare could have been wrong; after all, he invented thousands of words, which means at the time he couldn\'t think of what to say so he made them up out of nowhere - they very easily could have been nonsense to the native speaker at the time.
Second of all, Shakespeare was a very famous and well-established writer. He might have taken literary licence.
Third of all, Shakespeare lived four hundred years ago. The language was different then, and the rules of grammar very easily could have been different. In fact, I don\'t think that the English language even had a set of rules of grammar then. I know that Ben Jonson wrote the first Dictionary of the English Language about 50 years later (give or take a few years), and the first council of people who met to determine proper English congressed at about the same time. Yes, I\'m positive, it was the middle of the 1600\'s, and Shakespeare had died already.
So there goes your argument using one of Shakespeare\'s famous lines. ANYONE ELSE!!!!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 23:08:34 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Let me just say, I wish to apologize to all of those who feel taken aback by the aggressive attitude I\'ve taken on this particular querry. I\'ve given strong responses to those who have disagreed with me throughout the page. It\'s just that I feel very adament about grammar, and have always prided myself on my knowledge of it, especially of my native English grammar, since I live in the States and almost nobody here, especially by my hometown, speaks, knows, or even cares about correct grammar. So, since I feel very strongly about it, I tend to lash out at those who I feel to be wrong. Please, no offense is intended. Thanks for bearing with me!!!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-05 22:11:42 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
...and will probably never improve. Also, when I said \"If \'all\' was defining the governments\", \'all\' was actually the shortened form of \' the word \"all\" \' (rarely anyone feels the need to write out the whole thing anymore) and so is treated as a singular. If I was actually referring to a group of people, then \'were\' would have been the correct verb. However, \'was\' was the correct one since it was one quoted word.
Anyway, the point is moot since the answer has been chosen already. I appreciate your advice and explanation. If you don\'t mind, would you be so kind as to tell me the ISBN number of that book, \' \"An Advanced English Grammar\" by Christophersen and Sandved\', or any other identifying code so I can get a copy? Thanks.
Stay well.
-Dan
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Jonathan Widell
: Grammatically, both are OK. Because it is a prepositional phrase, "all of" implies that the US can bring down SOME of these governments, while "all the" suggests that there are too many such governments and the US will be lucky to bring down any of them.
1 hr
|
|
Well, I suppose that the different ways of saying it might change the connotation, but both are not grammatically correct. Also, the prepositional phrase, which consists of a preposition and its object, is in this case "of the governments"; not "all of".
|
|
| neutral |
Vera Rocha
: In 'all the governments' shouldn't we omit the determiner 'the'? Trying to learn some more from your answer. Thanks.
2 hrs
|
|
No problem. Yes: as I stated (perhaps indirectly), in order to say "the governments", one needs to say "all OF" beforehand, but if one simply says "all governments" without either the preposition or the article, that's OK too. It's all or nothing. :)
|
|
| disagree |
David Moore (X)
: Dan, they are BOTH correct, without a shadow of doubt - even if only by common usage
7 hrs
|
|
I'm not saying that in commonly they wouldn't be understood; in fact, I did say that they would. But the asker is asking for the grammatically correct way, not just what people will understand, and if you open a grammar book, it will tell you what I said.
|
|
| neutral |
Kardi Kho
: According to Practical English Usage, before a noun with a determiner (e.g. the, my, this), 'all' and 'all of' are both possible. Only with personal pronouns that we have to use 'all of'.
7 hrs
|
|
I agree that with personal pronouns one must use the preposition "of", but I maintain that such is also necessary with all other clarifiers. I will NOT back down, if we keep "THE governments" we need "all OF". That's all there is to it.
|
|
| agree |
Yelena.
: all governments or all of the governments
13 hrs
|
|
Thanks for the "agree", I've had to defend myself right and left here!
|
|
| neutral |
John Bowden
: Dan, I think you're seeing it from a US English perspective (naturally enough!),. Believe me, "All the governments" would be perfectly acceptable British English (some would sy the only acceptable version) - see my answer below.
19 hrs
|
|
Since when is BE better or more correct than USE? It originated from the same group of people, right? And I do NOT believe you. I believe what I put. I always say what I mean and mean what I say!
|
16 hrs
AlwaysMoving
Always meet deadline
Native in: Spanish
Works in: Spanish, English to Spanish, Spanish to English, and 1 more.
all governments
y sin nadano suena mejor?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 20:12:11 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry! sounds better that way.
I hope you are pleased DAN!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 20:12:11 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry! sounds better that way.
I hope you are pleased DAN!
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Daniel Mencher
: ¿Por qué hablas en español aquí? ¡Es una pregunta completamente sobre el inglés!
47 mins
|
|
asi solo me habla mi padre sabes!
|
-1
19 hrs
Both are correct...
1. "all" can be used with a plural noun without an article: e.g. "All governments should protect their citizens". Another way of saying the same thing would be "Every government should...". Very often the plural version is preferred when referring to people, in order to avoid possible gender bias or long-winded circumlocutions; thus "All will be informed of their examination results" rather than "Every student will be informed of his/her examination results" etc.
2. The addition of the article restricts the number (in this case, of governments)to a defined group: "the governments who have signed the treaty..." etc. In this case, the standard British English version is "All the governments who have signed the treaty...". Accurately or not, the "All of the governments" version was felt, until fairly recently, to be an American English usage, possibly becasue of well-known examples such as "You can fool all of the people some of the time..." (was it Lincoln?? I forget). The standard BE version would be "You can fool all the people...".
However, "all of the governments..." is now felt to be perfectly acceptable in BE as well, and I thinl very few people would object to it these days.
So, they are both correct and, I would sy, equally acceptable.
HTH
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 21:50:48 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, in 1. above it should read \"All *students* will be informed...\"
2. The addition of the article restricts the number (in this case, of governments)to a defined group: "the governments who have signed the treaty..." etc. In this case, the standard British English version is "All the governments who have signed the treaty...". Accurately or not, the "All of the governments" version was felt, until fairly recently, to be an American English usage, possibly becasue of well-known examples such as "You can fool all of the people some of the time..." (was it Lincoln?? I forget). The standard BE version would be "You can fool all the people...".
However, "all of the governments..." is now felt to be perfectly acceptable in BE as well, and I thinl very few people would object to it these days.
So, they are both correct and, I would sy, equally acceptable.
HTH
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-03 21:50:48 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, in 1. above it should read \"All *students* will be informed...\"
Peer comment(s):
| disagree |
Daniel Mencher
: Of course both are acceptable colloquially, but let me remind you, the asker wants to know the grammatically correct version, not the commonly recognizable version! Instead of telling the asker what to think, just answer the posed question!
1 hr
|
|
Take a deep breath, count to ten, look at your anger management manual and then read my comments below...
|
+1
2 days 10 hrs
I know the question has been graded now...
but can I just add a short clarification to a couple of points?
1. Neither I nor anyone else said that British English was "superior" - in my answer I was trying to say that, *in BE*, both the "all governments" and the "all of the governments" versions were used, but that many BE speakers would consider the "all governments" the more acceptable version - I was not "criticising" the AE version at all.
Since Hamo didn't specify whether the text was to be written in AE or BE, I simply added the BE perspective to what Dan had said from the AE perspective.
2. There is no conflict between grammar and usage in this case: as I said, the difference occurs between AE and BE, whose grammars have diverged at various points over the centuries. As far as BE is concerned, the use of determiners is admirably and succinctly summed up in many grammar books; one which I have before me, "An Advanced English Grammar" by Christophersen and Sandved, states (referring to BE):
"...most determiners are mutually exclusive...There are, however, a few determiners that can be used side by side with others. The most important of these are:
a)Both and All, which can be used with the, these, those and any genitive, whether of a noun or a pronoun; [thus]
Both the/my/John's friends
All the/my/John's friends..."
Note that the "All of the friends" is not mentioned even as a possible version in BE!
The addition of "of" following both and all is a "back-formation" on analogy with other determiners, e.g. "most", "none", some" etc, which, even in BE do have to to be followed by "of"; this development took place in AE before it did in BE, but now the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, for example, gives both versions: "All (of) the boys enjoyed themselves". However, even in AE, the British version is sometimes used to achieve a specific effect: the title of "All the President's Men", for example, rather than "All of the President's Men" reminds the native speaker of Humpty Dumpty's (BE) "All the King's horses and all the KIng's men..."
So, when one asks "which is the grammatically correct version...", one often has to distinguish between AE and BE - for example, what are the "grammatically correct" preterite forms of the verbs "dive" and "sneak"? The answer is that there are TWO correct forms: "dove" and "snuck" (exclusively AE) and "dived" and "sneaked" (exclusively BE) - this is not a matter of "usage", but of divergent grammars.
However, grammar is ALWAYS based on usage - that's why both versions are now acceptable - grammatically correct -in BE. Usage changes, and, as Dan says, native speakers aren't always aware of the mistakes they make - perhaps that's why he writes "If 'all' was defining the governments.." rather than "were", and why he spells "adamant" wrongly - but it helps to know what the grammatical situation is before you start defending it so belligerently!
1. Neither I nor anyone else said that British English was "superior" - in my answer I was trying to say that, *in BE*, both the "all governments" and the "all of the governments" versions were used, but that many BE speakers would consider the "all governments" the more acceptable version - I was not "criticising" the AE version at all.
Since Hamo didn't specify whether the text was to be written in AE or BE, I simply added the BE perspective to what Dan had said from the AE perspective.
2. There is no conflict between grammar and usage in this case: as I said, the difference occurs between AE and BE, whose grammars have diverged at various points over the centuries. As far as BE is concerned, the use of determiners is admirably and succinctly summed up in many grammar books; one which I have before me, "An Advanced English Grammar" by Christophersen and Sandved, states (referring to BE):
"...most determiners are mutually exclusive...There are, however, a few determiners that can be used side by side with others. The most important of these are:
a)Both and All, which can be used with the, these, those and any genitive, whether of a noun or a pronoun; [thus]
Both the/my/John's friends
All the/my/John's friends..."
Note that the "All of the friends" is not mentioned even as a possible version in BE!
The addition of "of" following both and all is a "back-formation" on analogy with other determiners, e.g. "most", "none", some" etc, which, even in BE do have to to be followed by "of"; this development took place in AE before it did in BE, but now the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, for example, gives both versions: "All (of) the boys enjoyed themselves". However, even in AE, the British version is sometimes used to achieve a specific effect: the title of "All the President's Men", for example, rather than "All of the President's Men" reminds the native speaker of Humpty Dumpty's (BE) "All the King's horses and all the KIng's men..."
So, when one asks "which is the grammatically correct version...", one often has to distinguish between AE and BE - for example, what are the "grammatically correct" preterite forms of the verbs "dive" and "sneak"? The answer is that there are TWO correct forms: "dove" and "snuck" (exclusively AE) and "dived" and "sneaked" (exclusively BE) - this is not a matter of "usage", but of divergent grammars.
However, grammar is ALWAYS based on usage - that's why both versions are now acceptable - grammatically correct -in BE. Usage changes, and, as Dan says, native speakers aren't always aware of the mistakes they make - perhaps that's why he writes "If 'all' was defining the governments.." rather than "were", and why he spells "adamant" wrongly - but it helps to know what the grammatical situation is before you start defending it so belligerently!
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Daniel Mencher
: Well, I accept that my answer wasn't accepted, and I appreciate your present clarification. To respond: I will admit that my spelling has been as awful as my handwriting since 3rd grade, and will probably (out of room, see addition onto my answer above)
9 hrs
|
Something went wrong...