Garner's Modern American Usage says this:
Quote:
|
C. As Subject. All, as subject, may take either a singular or a plural verb. When a plural noun is implied after all, the verb should be plural <all were present>—e.g.: "Until this morning, all were official residents of the three Dadaab refugee camps near the Kenya–Somalia border." David Finkel, "African Refugees Start Journey to Homes in Distant U.S.," Miami Herald, 25 Aug. 2002, at A16. But when all denotes a collective abstraction (as a mass noun), it should take a singular verb <all is well>—e.g.: "All she wants is people to be touched by the gifts she believes God has given her." Johanna D. Wilson, "Black Roots," Sun-News (Myrtle Beach, S.C.), 19 Aug. 2002, at C1.
|
So that gives an example of using "all" with a plural linking verb to a plural predicate nominative: "all were official residents." I guess, according to Fowler, that should be "all is official residents"? I don't know about you, but that sounds bizarre to me. Maybe there's more to Fowler's rule than what's quoted on that page.
The difference is in what it's implied that "all" is referring to: is "all" quantifying a countable collection, as it is to a group of people in that sentence, or an abstract totality?
When I see "All I Saw Were Stars," the plural "stars" in the predicate implies to me that "all" is standing in for a countable collection: all
the things I saw were stars. But it sounds to me like you and Hellacia are interpreting "all" more as an abstract field of vision.