# EN: They are all that fit(s) me - singular / plural



## okgoogle

Bonjour,

Dans Mean Girls,

« These sweatpants are all that fits me now. »

Fits est à la troisième personne du singulier.

Est-ce une erreur ?

Merci.


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonsoir,

je ne pense pas, comme en français : [...] sont tout ce qui me va maintenant.


----------



## Aterian

Bonjour,

Dans le film "Mean Girls",

_These sweatpants are *all* that *fits* me right now._

Est-ce que ici le singulier reste meilleur que le pluriel même si sweatpants est pluriel ?

Merci.


----------



## Maître Capello

C'est même à mon avis la seule option, car _all_ est ici singulier et signifie _tou*t*_ et non _tou*s*_.

_all that fit*s* me_ = tout ce qui me *va* 
_all that fit me_ = tout ce qui me *vont*


----------



## Aterian

Merci !!


----------



## LeifGoodwin

It sounds wrong to me, a native English speaker. I would say fit, not fits. However I suspect this is American usage, and a lot of American English sounds dreadful and plain wrong to me. No doubt the converse is true. In English, British and US (and Australian etc) usage tends to determine what is correct.


----------



## Language Hound

LeifGoodwin said:


> I would say fit, not fits.


 This American-English speaker would as well.


----------



## Maître Capello

This is unexpected to me because I believed that _all_ meaning _the only thing_ was always singular.

Can't you treat _these sweatpants_ as a single unit, thus as a singular, since we are actually talking about a single piece of clothing? 

What about the following?

_These sweatpants are the only thing that *fits* me. / These sweatpants are the only thing*s* that *fit* me.
These sweatpants are what *fit(s)* me the best._

See also this related English Only thread: are all that remain(s).


----------



## LeifGoodwin

The first two sentences sound right to me, I’m not sure about the third, I’d say *These sweatpants fit me best*. I should add that this is just my everyday usage, could be dialectical or even formally wrong!


----------



## Maître Capello

LeifGoodwin said:


> I’d say *These sweatpants fit me best*.


Right, but this does not answer the grammar question.  I agree the third sentence is not very natural; I was merely trying to understand whether the singular or plural would be used in a _what_-clause used as predicate in a main clause with a plural subject.


----------



## LeifGoodwin

Maître Capello said:


> Right, but this does not answer the grammar question.


Fair point!


----------



## Maîtreaupôle

Maître Capello said:


> Right, but this does not answer the grammar question.  I agree the third sentence is not very natural; I was merely trying to understand whether the singular or plural would be used in a _what_-clause used as predicate in a main clause with a plural subject.


Perhaps it is a fair point as LeifGoodwin concedes (#11) with respect to whatever the grammar question you have in mind is. All I can say is that as an English speaker, there is no way in the world I would ever say, "These pants (or sweatpants) _fill in as you have in your examples (#8)_ fits me. To do so is completely unidiomatic regardless of whether it is in some grammatical sense illogical. The most part of my oral experience is Canadian, but I find it hard to believe the case would be different in Australia, England or the U.S. on this point.


----------



## Maître Capello

You're not answering the grammar question either. 

Just forget about those sentences. Let's take different examples:

_These pants are what *is/are* needed.
These pants are all that *is/are* needed._

Would you still use the plural _are_ over the singular _is_? (I wouldn't.)


----------



## LeifGoodwin

If I may, I’ll give you a more common example.

We might say:

*These economic measures are what is needed.
These economic measures are all that is needed.*

I don’t know if that is grammatically correct but they sound right. Be warned that my degrees are in physics, and not English.


----------



## Maître Capello

So, why do you use the singular in this case but you prefer the plural in the original sentence? What triggers the use of the singular or the plural?

_These pants _{plural}_ are all that *fit* _{plural} _me now.
These economic measures _{plural}_ are all that *is* _{singular} _needed._


----------



## Aterian

Pour moi, l'emploi de la troisième personne du singulier _fits_ avec _these sweatpants_, veut dire qu'il n'y a aucun vêtement (une jupe, robe, etc.) qui lui va sauf _these sweatpants_.
Et au pluriel, aucune paire de pants, sweatpants, trousers, etc. ne lui va sauf _these sweatpants_.
En gros, le sens est changé. Et je trouve que la formule employée dans le film est la bonne, à savoir :
"_These sweatpants are *all* that *fits* me right now."_

EDIT: Après cela dépend comment on considère le All, les deux versions semblent bonnes.
Ces pantalons (en supposant une paire en français) sont les seuls qui me vont.
Ces pantalons sont la seule chose qui me va.


----------



## Language Hound

Maître Capello said:


> This is unexpected to me because I believed that _all_ meaning _the only thing_ was always singular.
> 
> Can't you treat _these sweatpants_ as a single unit, thus as a singular, since we are actually talking about a single piece of clothing?
> 
> What about the following?
> 
> _These sweatpants are the only thing that *fits* me. / These sweatpants are the only thing*s* that *fit* me.
> These sweatpants are what *fit(s)* me the best._
> 
> See also this related English Only thread: are all that remain(s).


As pointed out in the English Only thread you provided a link to, _all _is governed by its referent and can be either singular or plural in construction.

_All _does mean _the only thing _here, but _the only thing _is not governed by its referent. It takes a singular verb.

_These sweatpants _can be a single piece of clothing, but the verb must be plural. (These sweatpants are too small.)
If you add "the only thing" or "the only things" to the sentence, then the verb will agree with "thing" (s.) or "things" (pl.).
Note the difference in meaning between "These sweatpants are the only thing that *fits* me" (we're talking about only one pair of sweatpants) and "These sweatpants are the only thing*s* that *fit *me" (we're talking about more than one pair of sweatpants).


----------



## Maître Capello

Given that the singular "These sweatpants are the only thing that *fits* me" is standard, can't we apply the same singular logic in the original sentence? Said differently, does "These sweatpants are all that *fits* me" sound totally unacceptable to you, especially if talking only about a single pair of pants? Or is it just less common than _fit_ in the plural?


----------



## Language Hound

Maître Capello said:


> Given that the singular "These sweatpants are the only thing that *fits* me" is standard, can't we apply the same singular logic in the original sentence?


No. Synonymous words or phrases do not always follow the same pattern.


Maître Capello said:


> ...does "These sweatpants are all that *fits* me" sound totally unacceptable to you, especially if talking only about a single pair of pants?


Yes. Although, apparently, it didn't sound unacceptable to the _Mean Girls _actress who said it.


----------

