all dressed in uniforms

[navi tasan]

1) They were dressed all in uniforms.
2) They were all dressed in uniforms.

Are both correct?

I use #2. I was wondering if #1 was correct.

 

[Tarheel]

The first one might be correct. (I'm not certain.) However, it looks weird to me. So I wouldn't normally use it if at all.

 

[5jj]

1) They were dressed all in uniforms.
2) They were all dressed in uniforms.

#1 does not work. All in this position means entirely.
#2 is better, though it would be more natural with in uniform. The plural uniforms could suggest that each of them wore more than one uniform.

 

[probus]

#2 is better, though it would be more natural with in uniform. The plural uniforms could suggest that each of them wore more than one uniform.

Or it might conceivably mean that more than one uniform was being worn, as for example if some of them were soldiers and some were sailors.

 

[emsr2d2]

Even if they were in the uniforms of different militaries or services, I'd expect "They were all [dressed] in uniform".

 

[Phlebas the Phoenician]

1) They were dressed all in uniforms.

All in this position means entirely.

To me, #1 is reminiscent of a line from Clement Clarke Moore's poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas" (a.k.a. "'The Night before Christmas"):

"He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot."

Navi hasn't specified the referent of "They." If "They" refers to floats in a parade, which might be decorated in uniforms not being worn at the time, (1) could work.

Though far-fetched, such a context is not inconceivable.

 

[PeterCW]

Even if they were in the uniforms of different militaries or services, I'd expect "They were all [dressed] in uniform".

I would would use "in uniform" to refer to people entitled to wear those uniforms such as serving soldiers. If the uniforms were worn as fancy dress then it would be "uniforms".