# All kind of / all kinds of



## guillem1961

I need help on the following sentence written by a Spanish studend of English:

*"Adrian is involved in all kind of issues"*

Should it be written "all kinds of"?

I ask this question because it seems to me that "all kind of issues" is also fine. 

Is there a difference between "all kind of " and "all kinds of"?

Thanks in advance,

guillem1961


----------



## Archilochus

I don't know if there's a strict rule, but I would use 'kinds' there because of 'issues' (plural/plural). On the other, I would use the singular 'kind' in sentences like this, "Adrian is involved in all kind of mischief." (The singular there is a matter style for me -- I think it gives the sentence a better rhythm.)


----------



## guillem1961

Archilochus,

Thanks very much for your help

guillem1961


----------



## Lecword

Hola a todos

Quisiera saber cuál de estas frases es correcta o si ambas lo son:

_I like all kind of music.
I like all kind*s* of music.
_
(Me gusta todo tipo de música.)

Muchas gracias


----------



## Wandering JJ

Todo tipo de... = all kind*s* of...

PD Debieras poner el título del hilo en español si es lo que quieres traducir.


----------



## Lecword

Gracias Wandering JJ, no lo sabía.


----------



## FromPA

Archilochus said:


> I don't know if there's a strict rule, but I would use 'kinds' there because of 'issues' (plural/plural). On the other, I would use the singular 'kind' in sentences like this, "Adrian is involved in all kind of mischief." (The singular there is a matter style for me -- I think it gives the sentence a better rhythm.)



I do hear people say "all kind of mischief,"  but I don't think it's correct (it doesn't make sense to me).  I think it should always be "all kinds."


----------



## geostan

I don't hear people say *all kind of*.  And I cannot think of an example where it just doesn't sound wrong.


----------



## JennyTW

Don't you mean you "can't think of an example where it SOUNDS right"?


----------



## turi

JennyTW said:


> Don't you mean you "can't think of an example where it SOUNDS right"?



What's wrong with "cannot"? And, yes, geostan's statement does sound right to me, it just does not sound right when you are talking in plural, whichever example you are wanting to write about.

Saludos, t.


----------



## Chasint

The point is that "all" requires the noun that immediately succeeds it to be plural, e.g.

_All men are equal.

All potatoes contain starch.

All rabbits...

All ideas...

All kinds..._

Therefore it should always be "all kinds of..." regardless of the rest of the sentence.


----------



## JennyTW

turi said:


> What's wrong with "cannot"? And, yes, geostan's statement does sound right to me, it just does not sound right when you are talking in plural, whichever example you are wanting to write about.
> 
> Saludos, t.


Sorry, I put "can't" but "cannot" is equally correct. That isn't the point I was trying to make. But I miseread  Geostan's sentence. As it stands it's fine.


----------



## duvija

Biffo said:


> The point is that "all" requires the noun that immediately succeeds it to be plural, e.g.
> 
> _All men are equal.
> 
> All potatoes contain starch.
> 
> All rabbits...
> 
> All ideas...
> 
> All kinds..._
> 
> Therefore it should always be "all kinds of..." regardless of the rest of the sentence.



Are we into 'all kind of fish'?


----------



## abb1025

What about all manner of exceptions?


----------



## Wandering JJ

abb1025 said:


> What about all manner of exceptions?


All mankind loves to find exceptions.


----------



## Chasint

duvija said:


> Are we into 'all kind of fish'?


I would of course say "All kinds of fish." As I said, it has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence - only the immediately following noun is relevant.

Maybe I haven't understood your point. Please elaborate.


----------



## Chasint

abb1025 said:


> What about all manner of exceptions?





Wandering JJ said:


> All mankind loves to find exceptions.


It never pays to make generalisations on this forum.  I'll modify my 'rule'. 

If the immediately following noun is countable then 'all' takes the plural. Better?


----------



## Wandering JJ

Biffo said:


> It never pays to make generalisations on this forum.  I'll modify my 'rule'.
> 
> If the following noun is countable then 'all' takes the plural. Better?


Perfect!


----------



## abb1025

Biffo said:


> It never pays to make generalisations on this forum.  I'll modify my 'rule'.
> 
> If the immediately following noun is countable then 'all' takes the plural. Better?


.


----------



## echinocereus

I vote for "all kinds of."   The use of "all kind of" is indeed common in AmE, but it seems very colloquial to me, that is, bordering on the, please forgive the judgment, sub-standard.  Saludos.


----------



## duvija

echinocereus said:


> I vote for "all kinds of." The use of "all kind of" is indeed common in AmE, but it seems very colloquial to me, that is, bordering on the, please forgive the judgment, sub-standard. Saludos.


----------



## echinocereus

Because of your emoticon, Duvija, I sense that my "judgment" bothered you.  Sorry.  I guess I should have said "non-standard."  That's what I usually say to try to avoid offending someone who uses an expression in my language that I try to avoid.  Again "Lo siento."


----------



## duvija

echinocereus said:


> Because of your emoticon, Duvija, I sense that my "judgment" bothered you. Sorry. I guess I should have said "non-standard." That's what I usually say to try to avoid offending someone who uses an expression in my language that I try to avoid. Again "Lo siento."



Actually, it has nothing to do with 'judgment'. I believe we all use 'non-standard' words, for shock, tenderness, differentiation, or other extra-linguistic reasons, by adding a literary effect. (For me, the most clear example is Spanglish, which I don't consider sub-standard at all. There is stuff you cannot say otherwise).
Sorry for choosing the wrong emoticon. It should have been the one with the tongue out, while smiling.


----------



## echinocereus

I'm glad to hear that, Duvija.  I too use some non-standard words sometimes - for humor value in particular.


----------



## JennyTW

Publicado por abb1025  
What about all manner of exceptions?
 Publicado por Wandering JJ  
All mankind loves to find exceptions.





Biffo said:


> It never pays to make generalisations on this forum.  I'll modify my 'rule'.
> 
> If the immediately following noun is countable then 'all' takes the plural. Better?


But surely "manner" is countable, isn't it?


----------



## loudspeaker

I'm sure all of you are familiar with  'all manner of' but honestly, do you actually use it? It seems really archaic to me. It just doesn't sound contemporary. 
I would use 'all kinds of' or 'all sorts of'.


----------



## Chasint

JennyTW said:


> ...
> But surely "manner" is countable, isn't it?


It's a good question. However there is a simple answer. You're right and I'm right. We're both right!

I claim that 'all' takes the plural if we deal with a countable noun. The fact is that the plural of 'manner' is 'manner' when the word is used in this context!

Don't believe me? Here's a quote from the Bible:

And the Lord said unto her, “Two nations are in thy womb, and _*two manner *_of people shall be separated from thy body...
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=manner+of&qs_version=KJ21

It doesn't say "two manners of people" any more than we would say "two sheeps". 

So...the 'rule' still holds!


----------



## Wandering JJ

Except that 'sheep' is both singular and plural: the sheep is/the sheep are.

Personally, I think 'manner' used in the phrase 'all manner of' is uncountable as your wouldn't say "he came out with all *manners of excuses", for example.


----------



## Chasint

Wandering JJ said:


> *(a) *Except that 'sheep' is both singular and plural: the sheep is/the sheep are.
> 
> (b) Personally, I think 'manner' used in the phrase 'all manner of' is uncountable as your wouldn't say "he came out with all *manners of excuses", for example.


(a) I don't think you've read my argument carefully. I've already mentioned that 'sheep' is both singular and plural. I used that fact to support my argument that manner could also be the same in singular and plural.

(b) The fact that we don't say "all manners of excuses" neither supports nor denies the countability of 'manner'.

(c) How do you explain the Bible quotation containing "_*two manner of people"*_ if you deny manner is countable?  Please look at the following:

One carrot, two carrots.
One type, two types.
One sheep, two sheep. (known to shepherds everywhere)
One manner, two manner. (as demonstrated in the Bible)

It is clear to me that this use of "two manner" demonstrates that this is a different meaning of the word from, say, _table manners_ which has a conventional plural.


----------



## Wandering JJ

Biffo,
Forgive my lack of understanding. I've looked more deeply into it and as Otto Jesperson believes that 'manner' derives from an old s-less plural, then the KJV version of the Bible (400 years old) was almost certainly using it as a plural, as you said. You must admit there are not many modern incidences of "numeral + 'manner'".
Thank you for improving my knowledge.


----------

