Talk:all for

all for
Actually just all: + for:. Usex: I'm all for people being able to edit this dictionary. But this kind of entry makes you wonder of the wisdom of it. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, this feels rather idiomatic to me. You certainly can't necessarily translate it into other languages by translating the relevant meaning of "all" followed by the relevant meaning of "for". —Angr 18:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, instinctively. Also you can't say all against which makes me think this isn't a sense of against, but rather a two word idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Angr: Isn't it just all: + for:. Lots of frequently used collocations seem to have stronger glue linking them than normally combining words, which in turn have stronger glue than novel combinations like raspberry printer. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @MG: By the stated argument we should have utterly against (and probably others), because one cannot readily find utterly for with this sense of for. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose, if retained, this should not be an adjective, but rather a preposition, as it takes a mandatory complement and forms, with that complement, a phrase that serves just like a PP headed by for. This offered all in good fun. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes me wonder why you can't say "I'm all against having people editing this dictionary". Equinox ◑ 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. It seems you can, though it appears much less common. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You evidently spent ages trying to find that :D. I've got a hunch we should have an adverbial sense at all meaning entirely, but could it be used in other phrases? I'm all over...? Hmm? Maybe not. Equinox ◑ 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have it as all:, but I think it needs a gloss-type definition as well. We can select from the set of all intensifiers, the ones that are closest: wholly and quite are what MWOnline has, entirely seems even better. But there might be others, too. Probably all intensifiers should have glosses and some may not. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring, you kinda misinterpreted me. What I actually said was I don't know if there is such a sense of all, unless it is used in the phrase all for. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)