Tell me please if used the phrase correctly in the following context.

Person 1: How is this bottle called in English?

Person 2: Water bottle

Person 1: and that is all?

What I want to convey by that phrase is that person 1 is surprised by the fact that the bottle is simply called a water bottle, and there is no any specific name to the bottle. I doubt that that phrase was right in that context. I just translated it word for word from my native language. Tell me please what is the natural way to convey the meaning in English.

  • What is this bottle called? No, you are not using it "and that is all" correctly. Idiomatic would be "And that's the only name for it?" Sep 1, 2018 at 13:55
  • @DmytroO'Hope Did you mean and that is all? as asking whether those two words are truly enough to describe the type of bottle, or whether there are any other (different) terms aside from water bottle to describe the bottle?
    – user3395
    Sep 1, 2018 at 14:06
  • 1
    The first option: whether two words are trully enough to describe the type of bottle Sep 1, 2018 at 19:39
  • "Person 1: and nothing else?"
    – user3169
    Sep 1, 2018 at 21:19
  • Would it be the phrase "that is it" be equivallent to the pjrase "and nothing else" in the context? Sep 2, 2018 at 5:00

1 Answer 1


and that is all? can be paraphrased as "And is there nothing else?" or "Is that the full extent of it?"

Why did you set up this meeting?
-- I wanted to talk about the microwave in the cafeteria.
And that's all? Couldn't you have sent me an email?


He has been charged with bank-fraud and possession of narcotics.
--And that is all?
And he has over $10,000 in unpaid parking tickets.

If you ask me

What's this called in English?

and I reply

It's called a syringe.

It would not be idiomatic for you to reply back to me

And that's the extent of it?

Why? Because you've asked for a name, not for an explanation, or a list. You've not asked for anything with "extent".

Now, if you were to ask instead:

What are all of the words for this thing in English?

and I say

It's a bottle opener.

Then you might retort:

And that's all?


And that's it?

  • And how exactly doesn't that fit the context? Despite the asker's "and there is no any specific name to the bottle", I think they meant to say "there's nothing that'd further specify this type of bottle" – Is that really its full name?.
    – user3395
    Sep 1, 2018 at 14:03
  • @userr2684291: The question and that is all? is existential. Names for things are not existential. Idiomatic would be only. or Are there other names for it? The usage is not ungrammatical, but it is not idiomatic. Sep 1, 2018 at 14:06
  • I think native speakers would actually ask And that's it? Just "water bottle"?, perhaps with some emphasis on the word water. I'd say And that's all? is essentially equivalent. I can't read minds but I think they didn't mean to ask about other terms to identify the type of bottle.
    – user3395
    Sep 1, 2018 at 14:09
  • 1
    And that's it? would be idiomatic here, I agree, but And that's it? is not the idiomatic equivalent of And that's all? in this particular context. Not a huge difference, but were talking about what is idiomatic in context. If you disagree, please give an answer of your own. Sep 1, 2018 at 14:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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