They are married all/both

[Rachel Adams]

Are "both" and "all" used correctly?

1. "They are married all."
2. "They are married both."
3. "They play football both.
4. "They play football all."
5. "They live in New York all."
6. "They live in New York both."
7. "They were born in London both."
8. "They were born in London all."
9. "They have cars both."
10. "They are students both."
11. "They are students all."

 

[Yankee]

Are "both" and "all" used correctly?

1. "They are married all."
2. "They are married both."
3. "They play football both.
4. "They play football all."
5. "They live in New York all."
6. "They live in New York both."
7. "They were born in London both."
8. "They were born in London all."
9. "They have cars both."
10. "They are students both."
11. "They are students all."

No. At best "unusual". Should be "They both....." or "...are/were both....."

 

[Rachel Adams]

No. At best "unusual". Should be "They both....." or "...are/were both....."

All the sentences are wrong, aren't they? Only these would be correct "they both were born in London" and "they were both born in London." And "they all play football" and "they both play football". Right?

 

[emsr2d2]

You won't hear any of them from a native speaker.

 

[Skrej]

You might encounter something similar to the 'all' versions in antiquated or poetic language. You wouldn't encounter them today in daily writing or speech.

I'm drawing a blank on the poem, but it seems like I've encountered similar examples in a poem. Again, poetic syntax often bends or breaks the rules of normal grammar for special effect.