All was or were

[Ju]

1. All were wine drinkers at the party last night.

2. All was wine drinkers at the party last night.

What are the differences between the above sentences, please?

Thanks.

 

[tedmc]

No. 1 is correct; No.2 is not. "All" refers to the drinkers, which is plural.

 

[Ju]

No. 1 is correct; No.2 is not. "All" refers to the drinkers, which is plural.

How about "all is all"?
Why do we put "is" there?

Thanks.

 

[tedmc]

You use "all" as singular with uncountable nouns, e.g. all the work, all the effort.
Where have you seen "all is all"?

 

[Ju]

You use "all" as singular with uncountable nouns, e.g. all the work, all the effort.
Where have you seen "all is all"?

I heard it from someone's conversation.

 

[Ju]

You use "all" as singular with uncountable nouns, e.g. all the work, all the effort.
Where have you seen "all is all"?

May I try to make some sentences as :

1. All the work has been wonderful.
2. I am sorry to see all the effort has gone unnoticed.

Are they correct?

 

[jutfrank]

In the original post, neither sentence sounds natural.

 

[Rover_KE]

Where have you seen "all is all"?

I heard it [STRIKE]from[/STRIKE] in someone's conversation.

Almost certainly not a native English-speaker, then.

 

[emsr2d2]

I heard it from someone's conversation.

Are you sure they didn't say "All in all"?

 

[Ju]

Are you sure they didn't say "All in all"?

Probably it's my mistake. Sorry!