For whom the clinker clanks.
Dear Word Detective: I’ve pondered the question and I’ve done a little research on the internet only to find conflicting opinions on the subject. So I write to you, the master, to give me an answer to the question. Is it “all told” or “all tolled”? Even newspapers frustrate me on this one (not that they don’t frustrate me with their news as well). — L. Fiske.
Master, eh? So how come I can’t get my own dogs to do simple things, such as mowing the lawn? All they’re willing to do is wash dishes, and the plates smell funny afterward.
But since we seem to be in the mood for a pronouncement, here it is: the standard idiom is “all told,” not “all tolled,” and has been since it first appeared in the mid-19th century. What you have stumbled upon is a classic “eggcorn,” the substitution of a word or words that sound similar (or in this case exactly the same, “tolled” and “told” being homophones) to the “correct” words. The term “eggcorn” was coined in 2003 by linguist Geoffrey Pullum in regard to someone online using “eggcorn” instead of “acorn.” The key feature of an “eggcorn” is that the substitution makes a certain weird sense, as in the case of “eggcorn” itself. An acorn is indeed rather egg-shaped, and is a seed, as is corn, so if one has heard “acorn,” but never seen the word in print, writing it as “eggcorn” is not entirely crazy. The substitution of “for all intensive purposes” for “intents and purposes” is another semi-logical classic eggcorn.
“All tolled” is not only an eggcorn for “all told,” it’s apparently one that some people (according to the excellent Eggcorn Database) are willing to defend as the “correct” form. Their argument is that “tolled” means “added up,” which it does not and never has. “To toll” (of which “tolled” is the past tense) means “to ring a bell,” or (rarely) “to demand a tax or charge” (as at a toll booth). The noun “toll” means “tax, charge or levy.” The use of “toll” in “death toll” and similar phrases as a metaphorical equivalent of “price” does not mean that “to toll” means “to sum up.”
“All told,” on the other hand, does sound a bit odd. At first glance, “all told” seems to imply that whatever is being summed up is a sort of story being narrated or “told,” and when the story-telling is finished one says “all told,” a weirdly abrupt equivalent of “game over.”
But “tell” (of which “told” is the past tense) didn’t originally mean “to narrate.” Rooted in the Old English “tellen,” it meant “to count” or “to keep track of,” a sense we still use when we “tell time” and which underlies the word “teller,” a person who keeps track of money in a bank. “All told” embodies this archaic sense of “tell” in the past tense to mean “all counted and added up, in summation.” So “all told” can be properly used in a numerical sense (”All told, twelve football players were arrested”) as well as a more figurative sense of “the end result” (”All told, it was a pretty successful day”). Interestingly, the evolution of “to tell” from meaning “to count” to meaning “to narrate a story” is paralleled by another common word, “recount” (as well as “account” for the story itself).
What a treat to find your discussion of “all told/all tolled”. Growing up, I was taught (by whom?) that the expression “all told” was a contraction/variation of “all totalled” and that it originated in the accounting field. My wife, an accountant, has never heard of such a thing. Since you don’t mention “all totalled” in your presentation of “all told”, can I assume it’s not even a quasi-eggcorn, and simply wrong? Or is there something to it?
Regards, Alvin Arnold
Friends;
Told and tolled appear to be from the same root. Afterall when a bell tolls the hours it is counting them out. Perhapse we should not look at this as two words but one word with two spellings.
And yet, as in the tolling of a bell, we also have the “death toll,” specifically referring to a count or sum of the dead. “All tolled” clearly seems to be preferable.
I agree. For though “told” and “tell” may be justifiably archaic forms of “to count”, it is, well, archaic. Perhaps the phrase and its meaning should be allowed to grow and change, becoming “all tolled”?
“All tolled” is hardly preferable, and is clearly a minority corruption. Let it go.
I am in shock! The correct idiom is “all told”!!! The example cited, ”All told, twelve football players were arrested” to me seems to suggest that the football players were counted, there were 12 of them, hence, “All tolled/counted, twelve football players were arrested.” To me it seems a stretch to say the meaning of the phrase is something like “not to mince words/to tell you the whole truth, 12 football players were arrested,” ALL TOLD.
Sherry Wolf, M.A., Teaching English As A Second Language, Georgetown University, 1971
I like the explanation… but I’m curious to hear the justification of “Death toll” – and others like it. If “toll” works in “death toll”, then would it not also be justifiable in “all tolled”?
I’m still just as confused as ever. To me, both approaches make sense. “All Told”, meaning “after everything has been said, the result or outcome is _____”. And, “All Tolled”, meaning “after everything has been added up/weighed & measured, the result or outcome (or path forward) is _____”. They both work for me.
After gathering cows from various pens, getting them in the truck and heading to the auction, my Kentucky Dad would likely say something like “All toll, we got 18 head.”
The years go by, I leave the farm, find myself writing for a national magazine, and I use the phrase “$5 million here, $10 million there, all toll, we have $15 million dollars tied up in obsolete inventory…”.
Yes. “All toll”, just like Dad, and Uncle Ralph, and the whole family would say anytime they had to sum up parts into a whole.
Makes perfect sense to me. “Toll” is a contraction for “Totaled”!
May be I am wrong but the theme looks as follows:
should we remember of numbers when talking and of words when summarizing/finalizing them in two possible ways: to make smb/smth in or to make smb/smth out.
To make it sound academically one can propose:
All told, weighted and counted.
What we need is King Solomon’s books on wisdom and the Bible’s narration on his house-building. What he has left unweighted and non-counted were pagan idols allowed in Jerusalem. They were foul language the people fouled their hands with.
What we have is two languages: Abel’s and Cain’s.
It seems as if both spellings are arguably correct. One, (”all told”) appears to be the preferred form, at least in this culture. Very often the preferred spelling can change simply based on the culture/country that you are in. One example of this is the word defense. I’ve recently learned that in some English speaking countries, Canada being one, the preferred way to spell this word is with a ‘c’ as in defence. Since both sides have good arguments, I say just let both be acceptable and chalk another one up to the craziness of the English language.
I wonder if this is regional. I’m sure that many years ago I heard people use the phrase “toll up” to mean “add up,” but I cannot now find examples of that usage. Oddly, I’m willing to accept “all told” as preferable, but it makes me dislike the expression, and I will probably no longer use it. Although it may have once meant “all counted,” it now implies “Now that I have told you everything, . . .” which seems impertinent.
The term “eggcorn” was coined in 2003 by linguist Geoffrey Pullum in regard to someone online using “eggcorn” instead of “acorn.” The key feature of an “eggcorn” is that the substitution makes a certain weird sense, as in the case of “eggcorn” itself.
The use of pronouns “himself” “itself” “themselves,” etc.as “itself” is used in the above example drive me to distraction. What does “itself” add to your point? Wouldn’t “…as in the case of “eggcorn.” have sufficed?
The president himself said…?????
What part of speech is “himself” in that example?
Let’s put a stop to this nonsense! Please, I’m begging you.
Use of “itself” is often redundant. It’s not the only example of redundancy in the English language, and redundancy is a feature that aids in making communication more robust. Certainly redundancy has less use in a written missive, since one can always go back and re-read an important word. However, even readers will place unconscious weight on words and concepts that appear more than once, no matter how carefully they scrutinize every word. And let’s face it, some readers, or all readers some of the time, are just plain lazy and want to get to the end of the sentence, and it becomes a kind of in-the-head audible script.
Redundancy out of the way, there is still room for the word “itself” to have logical weight and value, since it is distinguishing the further use of the same word “eggcorn” from its previous uses, and acknowledging that the same example is being used twice, thus preventing confusion.
If one is attempting to compress piece of written language, then it probably does make sense to remove redundant bits. Definite and indefinite articles seem prime candidates also. And of course, one should bear in mind possibility that “itself” is not always necessary to convey logical thought with appropriate amount of weight. “Itself” could indeed distract from other important parts of sentence.
As to the question of what part of speech “himself” functions as in
“The president himself said . . .”
it is an adverb, in my opinion, because it modifies the clause “the president said”. It indicates that the president was not necessarily quoting someone else, and it emphasizes the role of the president in the sentence. It also serves as a defense against possible accusations that what the president said was against his character or nature.
Take the example:
“The boy himself said he threw the stone.”
It wouldn’t be in the boy’s nature to admit to something he didn’t do, so this accusation is anticipated and defended against by the use of the adverb “himself”.
This is all noncents.
The above comment wraps it all up…lol. Very clever comments and fun reading. I landed here because I read “all told” in an article and could have sworn it was wrong since I have believed the phrase to be “all tolled” for my whole life.
I don’t think its “all told” or “all tolled”. I believe the option that’s missing is “all to’aled”, a British (or possibly a Cockney) contraction of “all totaled”.
I conducted some research just now and I found many, many sites that corroborated the “all told” etymology and others that argue between “all told/all tolled”. However, I found neither no site that discussed “all totaled/all to’aled”, nor have I ever read or heard that derivation before.
“All told” is correct. “All tolled” is an “eggcorn” that apparently makes some of you feel good, but is incorrect. “All to’aled” has never existed.