how do we say?

[MrPedantic]

You can think it incorrect or illogical if you wish, but it is not always plural. There are 459 citations in COCA that show that some people use it.

That's still only about 6% of the combined total, even if we include all the "all kind of smiled" examples (which seem to be a fairly significant proportion).

Given that e.g. "teh" (for "the"), "accomodate", and "calender" return a number of examples, can we be sure that many items in that <6% aren't simply transcription errors?

(I don't say that "all kind of" isn't available, in some dialects, even though it sounds very odd to me; but I think it would almost always be taken for an error, if an ESL speaker were to use it.)

Best wishes,

MrP

 

[5jj]

(I don't say that "all kind of" isn't available, in some dialects, even though it sounds very odd to me; but I think it would almost always be taken for an error, if an ESL speaker were to use it.)

If it is available in some dialects, then are not people a little unreasonable if they take it as an error if an ESL speaker uses it?

 

[engee30]

Since this thread appears to be extending in its length and size, may I say to conclude that all the participants taking part in this fascinating discussion share the same opinion as for kind being preceded by all would be regarded as bad grammar, just for the sake of ESL standards.
;-)

 

[5jj]

Since this thread appears to be extending in its length and size, may I say to conclude that all the participants taking part in this fascinating discussion share the same opinion as for kind being preceded by all would be regarded as bad grammar, just for the sake of ESL standards.
;-)

You may say it you like, but it will not be true. We have ample evidence of its being used, and neither Practical English Usage nor the Oxford ALD regard it as bad grammar.

I would recommend that students do not use it - that's rather different.

 

[5jj]

Given that e.g. "teh" (for "the"), "accomodate", and "calender" return a number of examples, can we be sure that many items in that <6% aren't simply transcription errors?

No. But then we cannot be sure that some of the 'kinds' were not simply transcription errors. We can deal only with what we have before us, not what we think others might have intended.

 

[5jj]

Since this thread appears to be extending in its length and size, may I say to conclude that all the participants taking part in this fascinating discussion share the same opinion as for kind being preceded by all would be regarded as bad grammar, just for the sake of ESL standards.

If you want your opinions on the non-acceptability of forms to be taken seriously, you might like to consider the (non-) acceptability of the words I have underlined.

 

[engee30]

I accept that 'all kind of' appears to be illogical [...]
As a teacher, I would suggest that my students, especially those preparing for examinations, always use 'all kinds of'.

[...] I would recommend that students do not use it - that's rather different.

Thus far, you've given your suggestion that students do not use all kind of, twice in this very thread. What makes you do that? On one hand, you approve of such use; on the other hand, you don't?
:?:

 

[5jj]

Thus far, you've given your suggestion that students do not use all kind of, twice in this very thread. What makes you do that? On one hand, you approve of such use; on the other hand, you don't?
:?:

Read my words. Post #14 sums it up.

Learners who say "all kind of" are likely to be told by people like you that it is wrong. My suggestion is simply that they stick to the safer "all kinds of".

In it's written form, "aren't I?" the interrogative-negative of "I am" is 'logically wrong' but it is the form that is accepted in modern English.

"All kind of", undoubtedly wrong when I was at school, appears to be gaining acceptability. However, so long as there are people who think that they know better than an an experienced teacher of English who happens to be a native speaker, and than the writer of an immensely successful book on English usage and the compiler of the Oxford ALD, then I try to keep life simple for my students.

I have never said that I approve of the use of "all kind of". I accept it. My approval or diapproval is irrelevant.

 

[MrPedantic]

If it is available in some dialects, then are not people a little unreasonable if they take it as an error if an ESL speaker uses it?

I would say it's beyond reason or unreason, since most people don't actively monitor other people's grammar. So "take it as an error" may be misleading: "half-consciously register it as an error" or "be left with a vague impression that something is amiss" might be more descriptive.

On the question of availability in other dialects, I would guess that people are less likely to notice an unusual usage in an ESL speaker's English if it's supported by other unusual features from the same dialect.

On the other hand, a collection of odds and ends that are fine in this or that dialect but common to none may give the kind of impression that a non-native wouldn't want to give.

That said, I still don't know if "all kind of X" is a feature of particular kinds of English, or simply a general tendency I've failed to notice.

All the best,

MrP

 

[5jj]

All the best

And to you