'They are all good food.'

[MeowMeowMeow]

Hi guys,

I wonder if it's proper to say this:
They are all good food.

Since food is not in plural form.

Thank you in advance!

 

[The Newt]

Both the plural and the (uncountable) singular are possible; we would have to know more about the context.

 

[MeowMeowMeow]

The context is there are many delicious dishes on the table.

 

[The Newt]

The context is there are many delicious dishes on the table.

I think you can use "food" in that case. "Foods" might make sense when you're talking more generally about categories of food (grains, legumes, seafood) rather than prepared dishes.

 

[MeowMeowMeow]

In this case, can I use "are" to describe "food"?

 

[ain'ttranslationfun?]

I think the comment is more likely to refer to the (apparent) tastiness rather than the nutritional quality of the dishes, so 'good food' doesn't work for me (singular or plural). "They all look good/delicious!", maybe?

 

[lingobingo]

Could it be used? Yes.

Should it be used? No. At least, I wouldn’t use it, and I suspect most native speakers would find a neater way of putting it. Even just deleting the word “food” would make it sound more natural.

 

[The Newt]

In this case, can I use "are" to describe "food"?

It doesn't matter what follows the verb; what matters is what precedes it (the subject).

 

[Barque]

The context is there are many delicious dishes on the table.

There's plenty/lots of good food [on the table].

 

[ain'ttranslationfun?]

There's plenty/lots of good food [on the table].

I think (see #3) "There are a lot of tasty dishes on the table." ('food': meat, cheese, vegetables, etc.; 'dishes': the recipes)

 

[london calling]

The context is there are many delicious dishes on the table.

Grammatically 'It's all good food' is correct but we would never express the idea that you're trying to convey that way. I might well use it in a different context.