Question: > 
> **Possible Duplicate:**  
> 
> [Equivalent of “both” when referring three or more items?](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/22357/equivalent-of-both-when-referring-three-or-more-items) 
> 
> 
> 

Consider this statement:

> 
> Salads are both tasty and delicious.
> 
> 
> 

Is there a natural way to use that construct with more than two adjectives? I can't come up with anything that sounds right to me. Two things that came to my mind were:

> 
> Salads are all three tasty, delicious, and healthy.
> 
> 
> 

* This one doesn't sound natural to me.

> 
> Salads are each tasty, delicious, healthy, and cheap.
> 
> 
> 

* I'm not sure if this is even valid English.

*If someone can come up with a better title for this question, please do (and then remove this comment). Thanks!*

Answer: 
I agree with Monica that the form "Salads are a, b, c and d" is reasonable, and with Irene that placing *All* at the beginning of the sentence works ok.

Sticking a little closer to your original "Salads are both a and b" form, substituting *at once* for *both* allows

> 
> Salads are at once a, b, c and d
> 
> 
> 

which to my ear is markedly less clumsy than the previously suggested form,

> 
> Salads are all of a, b, c and d
> 
> 
>
We say *all three of them, all four of them, ..., all seventy-nine of them, ...*, etc. It turns out, though, that \**all two of them* is ungrammatical. 

As is often the case with special numbers like *one* or *two* or *twelve*, there is a special word, *both*, which we use instead of the ungrammatical \**all two*. If you want technical terminology, it's a Definite Dual Universal Quantifier -- and it's a Suppletive variant of \**all two*, just like *ever* is a Suppletive variant of \**anywhen*.