On 06/11/2012 01:05 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I suspect that some those (sic) instances are exercising poetic license
> (Shakespeare, surely) or merely demonstrate that this error is common
> in informal speech (Salinger's narrative).
Sorry, but that's not what's happening here. Certainly
E.B. White was not using informal speech in The New Yorker.
And I can easily find hundreds of other examples in formal
English that is carefully edited and is similarly unlikely
to contain grammatical errors. For example:
Foremost among the reasons for all these changes in family structure
are the gains of the women’s movement.
-- Kate Bolick, "All the Single Ladies", The Atlantic, Nov. 2011
<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/>
But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I.
-- David K. Shipler, "Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.",
New York Times, April 28, 2012
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html>
All these decisions lie in our own hands.
-- David Cameron, in a prepared formal speech at the World Economic
Forum, January 26, 2012
<http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/davos/article3300564.ece>
There's nothing grammatically wrong with any of these
examples, and more generally, the notion that "all these" is
grammatically incorrect is just wrong. On the contrary, the
traditional form uniformly omits the "of": there are dozens
of instances of "all these" in the King James Version and in
Shakespeare, and zero instances of "all of these". The form
"all of these" is relatively recent, and is probably due to
form-association with "some of these", "most of these", etc.
Although "all of these" is now grammatically correct, it has
by no means supplanted the traditional form "all these";
both forms are OK.
> I did a quick search and found this in response to a question:
> http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs2/grammarlogs339.htm
> ...
> In most constructions, we dispense happily with the "of." However, when
> there is another pronoun (such as "those, those") following the "all,"
> it's probably a good idea to include the "of."
>
> Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by
> R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the
> permission of Oxford University Press. (under _all_)
I'm afraid you've been had. That web page is bogus.
I have a copy of Burchfield and it advises the opposite
of what that web page claims it says. Here's a direct
quote from Burchfield:
_of_ can normally be dispensed with in nominal phrases:
e.g. _all those years ago_
-- Burchfield, p. 41, under "all"
> do any those uses in gnulib sound better without the "of"?
Clearly "of" is required after "any". "Any" and "all" are
grammatically different, which is why "all the time" is fine
but "any the time" is not.
But to get back to your question, all the examples in
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2012-06/msg00074.html>
work just as well, if not better, without the "of". Often
the optional "of" wastes the reader's time and wastes space.
Sometimes the "of" adds clarity or regularity, but I don't
see any such cases in those examples.
