Skip to main content

grammar - Correct usage for "all you need is/are..."



What is the correct verb tense for the phrase "all you need is", when what follows is a plural?



  • All you need is paintbrushes and paint.

  • All you need are paintbrushes and paint.


Or is neither incorrect? Both forms sound funny to me.


Google shows an order of magnitude more hits for "all you need is two" than "all you need are two", but the latter still has ~500K hits, so it seems that both forms are in common use. (You can also examples of both usages in Google's "News" search.)



Consider a related example:



  • All is good.

  • All are good.


Both forms are correct, but have slightly different meanings/contexts. The first is correct if "all" refers to "everything" (singular); the second is correct if "all" refers to an implied concrete set of things, as in "all (the widgets) are good". This line of reasoning seems to imply the latter form is correct, since "paintbrushes" are concrete things. (And yet that seems to be the less popular form in common usage, judging by Google hits).



Answer



I think the choice is driven by semantics. It depends on whether the object of the sentence is "seen" by the subject as a single concept or not.



  • All I need is cigarettes and alcohol.


        ...if you're thinking of their desired effects on your body, but...



  • All I need are cigarettes and alcohol.


        ...if you're making a shopping list.



  • All you need is paintbrushes and paint.


        ...to begin your artistic career, but...



  • All you need are paintbrushes and paint.


        ...because you already have an easel.



  • All you need is friends.


        ...some random collection of them, that is, but...



  • All you need are friends.


        ...each of them unique.


Finally,



  • All you need is love.


        ...never are, but some may think they need more. :)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more