Who all, where all, what all

[Yudan Taiteki]

I grew up in Indiana, and I use the plural forms in the topic frequently, i.e. "Who all was at the party?" or "Where all did you go over break?"

It has been suggested to me that this is Midwest dialect; do any of you use these forms?

[clay]

Born in Mississippi and lived in Florida for over a decade and have heard that in both places.

[AndyTheUsagi]

Born, raised, and still live in Oregon. I've definitely heard that, and actually used it myself. Not uncommon around here.

[shoCk_x]

I was raised and still live in northern California. I've never heard that here. I asked a friend of mine (that lives in my area) if she's ever heard it and she laughed her head off. n_n;

[chikara]

Yudan Taiteki wrote:
I grew up in Indiana, and I use the plural forms in the topic frequently, i.e. "Who all was at the party?" or "Where all did you go over break?" ....

If certain other forum members had posted that I would have thought it was a joke

I lived for a short time in MN and never heard that. I'm sure I would remember if I had as it is such "bad" English.

In both those sentences the word "all" is totally superfluous. I've heard "yous" incorrectly used as the plural of "you" but never "all" to make "who" and "you" plural.

Do teenagers over there say;
"Who all was like at the like party?"
"Where all did you like go over the like break?"

[AndyTheUsagi]

Take the word "like" out and you've got it. I've heard adults using the expression over here. You know what? Maybe the expression came from the Northwest instead. (Hahahaha)

[chikara]

AndyTheUsagi wrote:
Take the word "like" out and you've got it. .....

Take the words "all" and "like" out and the sentence has the same, if not clearer, meaning.

[saraLynne]

Grew up in Wisconsin, and I use it all the time. Can't speak for elsewhere, though. I've lived in Texas and now Nebraska but I've never made note of whether or not others say it.

@chikara: adding "all", in the manner than I use it, has the specific intent of conveying the idea that I would like to know things in comprehensive detail. "Where did you go on break?" indicates a desire for a brief answer, IE "Kentucky." "Where all did you go on break?" "I took a tour bus through Kentucky, and I saw this, that, the other, and visited a water park with my boyfriend."

If it has a function, it isn't "bad" IMHO. ^_^

[AJBryant]

Distinction: "Who all was at the party" = tell me everyone who was there. "Who was at the party" = gimme some names.

Or at least, that's how we used to figure it. I've heard it all my life.


Tony

[Yudan Taiteki]

chikara wrote:
In both those sentences the word "all" is totally superfluous. I've heard "yous" incorrectly used as the plural of "you" but never "all" to make "who" and "you" plural.

It's not totally superfluous. It isn't necessary, but it emphasizes the exact nature of the question, as others have indicated.

Do teenagers over there say;
"Who all was like at the like party?"
"Where all did you like go over the like break?"

I was a heavy user of "like" in my younger years, although both of those sentences are unnatural. Contrary to popular belief, "like" is not used randomly. It has a very wide range of meanings, but the range is not unlimited.

"Like" could go at the beginning of either sentence there, but if you want to put it in the middle of the sentences I think you would have to do:
"Who all was, like, at the party?"
"Where all did you go, like, over the break?"
But even these sound a bit odd to me -- if these were spoken the "like" would be used more as a filler word like Japanese "ee to" or "anoo".

Typically "like" has to have some connotation of its original meaning of "as" or "in the manner of". Often it adds emphasis with the connotation of distaste or something contrary to expectation.
"So is he, like, coming over tonight or what?" (Here "like" indicates a lack of expectation, or possibly distaste)
"So you're, like, not going to do any work at all?" (Once again, expresses distaste)

I still use "like" in speech to mean "giving off a general impression" in instances like this:
"He was [all] like 'how do you expect us to do all this homework?'" (In this case the same meaning is not conveyed with "He said".)

[richvh]

I don't think it's terribly common in my area (Mid-Hudson Valley of New York), and when it is used, it's likely to be inquisitorial (Explain yourself! Where all have you been off to, young man?) rather than merely nosy (You went to the party? Who all was there?)

[Shirasagi]

Born in Chicago, raised in Minnesota. I say, "Who all was there?" and have heard it often. "Where all did you go?", not so much. The use of "all" is not at all superfluous. If I ask "Who was there?" I expect my conversation partner to give me a broad overview of the people present - the highlights, as it were. If I include "all", I'm expecting a much more extensive, if not exhaustive, listing. So, pretty much like Tony says.

For the past 20(!) years, I've also used "like" as Chris describes. I am, of course, able to adjust my speaking style to fit the situation I'm in. And with my Old English ability, I'm able to be more "correct" than most of the grammar police.

[AJBryant]

Shirasagi wrote:
And with my Old English ability, I'm able to be more "correct" than most of the grammar police.

Old English!?

Sprecst þu Englisc? Ic leorne Englisc!

Beowulf! Forþæm þe Chaucer bið to eaðe!


Tony

[Shirasagi]

AJBryant wrote:

Shirasagi wrote:
And with my Old English ability, I'm able to be more "correct" than most of the grammar police.

Old English!?

Sprecst þu Englisc? Ic leorne Englisc!

Beowulf! Forþæm þe Chaucer bið to eaðe!


Tony

Eala! Ðu eart Effingham! Ic eom Iosue - ic gefultumode þe for þinum T-scyrte!

Damn. We're on about three different forums together. I don't suppose you hang out at BaseballThinkFactory.org or SumoForum.net, do you?

[chikara]

AJBryant wrote:
Distinction: "Who all was at the party" = tell me everyone who was there. "Who was at the party" = gimme some names.

Or at least, that's how we used to figure it. I've heard it all my life.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:
It's not totally superfluous. It isn't necessary, but it emphasizes the exact nature of the question, as others have indicated.

That is an interesting distinction and one that would never occur to me nor, I would imagine, the majority of English speakers in this country.

So if asked "Who was there?" you would not respond with all the names but a selected subset. Quite strange.