all of the many wonderful things

< Previous | Next >
  • Trochfa

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    I think it has to be retained. On its own "wonderful things" could mean that Martin Luther King only stood for two, or a few, great things. Donald Trump wants us to remember that King stood for "many [a large number of] wonderful things".
     

    Myridon

    Senior Member
    English - US
    I think NewAmerica's question is: Is "many" redundant with "all of"? "All of the things" and "all of the many things" refer to the exact same number of things. The second implies that the number of things is large.
    It could be removed making the sentence less emphatic. There is no need to remove it.

    There are two eggs in the basket. All of the eggs are in the basket.
    There are a thousand eggs in the basket. All of the many eggs are in the basket.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    "All" versus "many", which is bigger?

    The speaker has used "all" there: all of the many wonderful things. It seems obvious to me: All of the wonderful things > many of the wonderful things.

    That is, many is not necessary, because "all" includes anything (and here, anything wonderful).

    I think it has to be retained. On its own "wonderful things" could mean that Martin Luther King only stood for two, or a few, great things. Donald Trump wants us to remember that King stood for "many [a large number of] wonderful things".
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    I think NewAmerica's question is: Is "many" redundant with "all of"? "All of the things" and "all of the many things" refer to the exact same number of things. The second implies that the number of things is large.
    It could be removed making the sentence less emphatic. There is no need to remove it.

    There are two eggs in the basket. All of the eggs are in the basket.
    There are a thousand eggs in the basket. All of the many eggs are in the basket.
    :thumbsup:

    ALL is not the same as MANY
    All = 100%

    100% of 2 is 2
    100% of 1000 is 1000

    2 is not many
    1000 is many
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    Yes! That is exactly what I want to know.

    The logic of English is peculiar in this case to me. Because 300 or 800 eggs can be called "many" as well, but all eggs are 1000, thus "all">"many"===>>>so with "all" there, "many" is not necessary to me.

    :thumbsup:

    ALL is not the same as MANY
    All = 100%

    100% of 2 is 2
    100% of 1000 is 1000

    2 is not many
    1000 is many
     

    GreenWhiteBlue

    Senior Member
    USA - English
    Try this:

    Some public figures only stand for one or two things (for example, prosperity and economic growth, but not justice, or equality, or peace, or public order, etc.)

    Others stand for many things (for example, all of the above, plus -- for example -- brotherhood, and education, and tolerance.)

    Martin Luther King stood for many things, and Donald Trump is inviting people to celebrate not just a few of them, or some of them, but ALL of them.

    Does it make sense now?
     

    Trochfa

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    The point is that the plural word "things" only tells you that it is more than one thing. It could be as little as two things. As Julian said, "all =100 percent", therefore if you only say "all of the wonderful things" it could still only mean "two things". Donald Trump wants to emphasise that Martin Luther King stood for far more than that and so he used the word "many" to demonstrate that King stood for a very large number of great things.

    [Cross-posted with GreenWhiteBlue]
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Yes! That is exactly what I want to know.

    The logic of English is peculiar in this case to me. Because 300 or 800 eggs can be called "many" as well, but all eggs are 1000, thus "all">"many"===>>>so with "all" there, "many" is not necessary to me.
    Then you have not understood the key distinction. If the speaker had omitted many from the OP we would not have any idea whether it was 3 or 3,000 wonderful things. Omitting the "many" completely changes the meaning.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    It helps!

    Martin Luther King stood for many things, and Donald Trump is inviting people to celebrate not just a few of them, or some of them, but ALL of them.
    To celebrate all of King's wonderful things! Here, English inserts a comparison ("many" vs. "few": our hero did many while others did few) and thus the expression is made: all of the many wonderful things King stood for.



    Try this:

    Some public figures only stand for one or two things (for example, prosperity and economic growth, but not justice, or equality, or peace, or public order, etc.)

    Others stand for many things (for example, all of the above, plus -- for example -- brotherhood, and education, and tolerance.)

    Martin Luther King stood for many things, and Donald Trump is inviting people to celebrate not just a few of them, or some of them, but ALL of them.

    Does it make sense now?
    Try this:

    Some public figures only stand for one or two things (for example, prosperity and economic growth, but not justice, or equality, or peace, or public order, etc.)

    Others stand for many things (for example, all of the above, plus -- for example -- brotherhood, and education, and tolerance.)

    Martin Luther King stood for many things, and Donald Trump is inviting people to celebrate not just a few of them, or some of them, but ALL of them.

    Does it make sense now?
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    I think if one knows King, knowing that he stood for many wonderful things, then "all of the wonderful things King stood for" may not cause the misunderstanding.

    With "many" there, it steers clear of all possibilities of misunderstanding.

    The question in the OP probably reflects a psychological tendency in the thinking pattern of native English speakers that ESL learners are unaware of.

    Then you have not understood the key distinction. If the speaker had omitted many from the OP we would not have any idea whether it was 3 or 3,000 wonderful things. Omitting the "many" completely changes the meaning.
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    I think if one knows King, knowing that he stood for many wonderful things, then "all of the wonderful things King stood for" may not cause the misunderstanding.

    With "many" there, it steers clear of all possibilities of misunderstanding.

    The question in the OP probably reflects a psychological tendency in the thinking pattern of native English speakers that ESL learners are unaware of.
    The bold in your post is why context is so important in language. If we know he did many wonderful things, of course we don't need to repeat that in the OP sentence.

    As to your last comment, it seems more appropriate to say "Some ESL students may confuse "all" with "many" but they will eventually learn the difference.":) To repeat: All of 2 is still only 2 and that's not many:D
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Well, "many" will be undoubtedly removed in my native language. :D
    That is irrelevant to what happens in English - are all and many the same concept in you native language? :eek: If you don't know how many X there are, how would you distinguish between "Some of the many X" and "All of the many X"?

    If I am talking about grains of sand, where there are trillions of them on a beach and I have 5 grains in my hand and give them to someone and ask them "Did you get them all? The person would say "Yes I got all five" I ask him "Did you get many grains of sand?" he would say "No, I didn't I actually only got a few, but I got all you gave me".

    Then I turn round and get a bucketful of grains and give then give them to him : "Did you get many grains?" "Yes I got many many grains" "Did you get all of them" "No I got many but nowhere near all of them, the rest are still on the beach"
     
    Last edited:

    Truffula

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    Look at uses of "all the few" as the contrast to "all the many" - maybe that will help it make more sense?

    "...he toils under the sun all the few days of his life which God has given him" (from Ecclesiastes)

    "All the few major cruces in the play are discussed briefly in the notes" (from an end-note on a collection of Thomas Middleton's plays)

    "However, the majority, including almost all the few women, were going to the Directorate of Intelligence" (from A Spy for All Seasons by Duane Clarridge)
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Yes! That is exactly what I want to know.

    The logic of English is peculiar in this case to me. Because 300 or 800 eggs can be called "many" as well, but all eggs are 1000, thus "all">"many"===>>>so with "all" there, "many" is not necessary to me.
    Perhaps this is the logic block for New:

    There is huge difference in meaning between 1) and 2)

    1) Many eggs (= a large number, say several hundred)

    2) MANY OF the eggs (= NOT ALL OF the eggs, e.g. 500 out of the 800) - in this case, although there are many eggs we do not mean all of them. Many of the eggs could also mean 10 of the 15 eggs. Many OF x ≠ All X
     
    Last edited:

    siares

    Senior Member
    Slovak
    To repeat: All of 2 is still only 2 and that's not many:D
    Can 'all' really mean ´two´ in this context?
    I ask because
    I don't know whether anyone has pointed this out to you, but you cannot say Thank you all! to two people. :)
    Otherwise I think the OP the question ´all many' or ´all´ is stylistic only - whoever would say: appreciate him for all the few wonderful things he's done, or appreciate him for both wonderful things he's done?
    Counting wonderful things just seems greedy to me.:)
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Can 'all' really mean ´two´ in this context?
    I ask because

    Otherwise I think the OP the question ´all many' or ´all´ is stylistic only - whoever would say: appreciate him for all the few wonderful things he's done, or appreciate him for both wonderful things he's done?
    Counting wonderful things just seems greedy to me.:)
    No it is not just stylistice because the meaning (information content) is NOT the same. "All the X" does not tell you, or emphasize, how many X there are. "All the many X." does. All only means "100% of X" even if X is a small number. If I said, "You can have all the eggs" (because I did not know how many there were, that number could still be two:D) If I knew there were only two, I would, of course, say "You can have both of them."

    (I only count 7 native speakers in this thread - is that a large number or not ? "All of the (many) native speakers agree on this distinction.")
     

    siares

    Senior Member
    Slovak
    No it is not just stylistice because the meaning (information content) is NOT the same. "All the X" does not tell you, or emphasize, how many X there are.
    OK, but thank you for all your few wonderful explanations just sounds rude to me.:)
    (I only count 7 native speakers in this thread - is that a large number or not ? "All of the (many) native speakers agree on this distinction.")
    Oh, definitely not large number! :p All the few native speakers agree is my version.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    Look at uses of "all the few" as the contrast to "all the many" - maybe that will help it make more sense?

    "...he toils under the sun all the few days of his life which God has given him" (from Ecclesiastes)

    "All the few major cruces in the play are discussed briefly in the notes" (from an end-note on a collection of Thomas Middleton's plays)

    "However, the majority, including almost all the few women, were going to the Directorate of Intelligence" (from A Spy for All Seasons by Duane Clarridge)
    The example is cool. It helps enhance my sense of the English grammar.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top