2

My search on the Internet has shown that the preferred structure for "all" to qualify a pronoun is this: pronoun + (some verbs) + all.

E.g. this reference states that "...When all qualifies a subject pronoun, the pronoun and all normally stand together except with copular verbs such as to be" However, it doesn't specify which other copular verbs are used in the same way. It also does not clearly state anything about the modal auxiliary verbs.

My first question is if this structure pronoun + (some verbs) + all is generally preferred with all the modal auxiliary verbs?

E.g., sentences 1-5 sound ok to me, but sentence 5 does not

  1. You can/could all go to school.
  2. You may/might all go to school.
  3. You should/must all go to school.
  4. You will/would all go to school
  5. You ought to/have to all go school.

My second question is if anyone could confirm which other copular verbs (except to be) should be used in this structure {pronoun (+ be) + all }

Improve this question
4

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

Is [pronoun + (some verbs) + all] generally preferred?

I think it might depend on the pronoun and speaker. I say "Y'all", so "you all (auxiliary verb)" sounds more natural than "you (auxiliary verb) all", though both are acceptable.

However, "we all (auxiliary verb)" and "they all (auxiliary verb)" sound odd to me. (Maybe because they sound too similar to we'll or they'll?) In those cases, I'd strongly prefer "we (auxiliary verb) all" or "they (auxiliary verb) all". I think another reason for the difference is that we and (usually) they is unambiguously plural, while "you" could be singular.

Like you said, "You have to all go to school" sounds the least natural, but it's acceptable.

"And we have to all shoulder the responsibility..." - Obama, 2013

Which other copular verbs should be used in this structure?

I'm unable to think of any. I suspect the source meant auxiliary verbs, not copular verbs? For these copular verbs, "all" is an intensifier to the adjective, not a qualifier on the pronoun:

  • (wrong) We smelled all good.
  • (wrong) We went all crazy.

For auxiliary verbs:

All of the sentences in your example (can/could/may/might/should/must/will/would/ought to/have to) are OK. In addition, these are all okay:

  • You have/had all been to school.
  • You used to all work at the mall.
  • You need to all work together.
  • You did all arrive on time.
  • You had better all arrive on time.

Negations

"All" can't cross a negation or else it changes the meaning.

We all haven't been to school - None of us have been to school.
We haven't all been to school - At least one of us hasn't been to school.

Unacceptable verbs:

  • We dare all go skydiving - Ungrammatical
  • We would rather all eat lunch now - Implies "...rather than some of us eating lunch now and some later".

The replacements for defective forms could be okay, but it's abnormal.

  • (normal) You should all show up tonight.
  • (abnormal) You are supposed to all show up tonight.
  • (normal) You are all supposed to show up tonight.
Improve this answer
5
  • I'm unclear on where a sentence like "We should have been told to all arrive at 6pm" fits into this though. Is it the same moving-the-all situation based on "We all should have.."? And if it's a different sentence, are some of these examples also not moving-the-all?
    – Kaia
    Commented Jul 23 at 22:14
  • 2
    I can't see anything wrong with "We would rather all eat lunch now". Seems like perfectly acceptable English to me. I don't see anything ungrammatical with "we dare all go skydiving" either. Not a sentence that gets used often, maybe, but I think it would be fine. "Do we dare all go skydiving?! Yes we dare!". Any objection would be stylistic, not grammatical.
    – fred2
    Commented Jul 23 at 22:23
  • @fred2 my criteria was that the "all" order switch worked with most sample "we all xyz" sentences I could think of, and had the same meaning, but yeah. I had a hard time deciding what was wrong. The "unacceptable" ones are all very rare constructions in comparison so I think that's an indicator to avoid them unless you have a particular reason.
    – Kaia
    Commented Jul 23 at 23:13
  • @Kaia Since the subject of "told" and implied subject of "arrive" are the same ("we"), I think "all" can come before either verb and the meaning will be the same. It's different in "We will help to do it", where the subjects of "help" ("we") and implied subject of "do" ("some other people") are different.
    – ishtar
    Commented Jul 23 at 23:20
  • As a BrE speaker, we all and they all sound fine to me. I would have said "We all have to shoulder the responsibility", and I find Mr Obama's version slightly odd.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Jul 24 at 8:50
1

(All) the people will (all) have (all) been (all) doing it.

"All" may be before the main verb/after "be", before "be", before "have" or before the subject noun, a phenomenon called "quantifier floating". If that is too much to remember, remember: before the main verb/after "be".

They all do it.
They all seem to do it.
They are all wrong.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .