I suppose this sentence is intended to mean "Work is everything to me" or "Work is my whole life" or "Nothing is more important to me than work."

But "all in all" doesn't mean "everything." It means "on the whole" or "considering everything(and neglecting details)."

Also, it's an adverb, not a noun.

I believe I remember reading that archaic language is discouraged in sentences at Tatoeba, and in any case, I think it ought to be, for various reasons. I changed the sentence, but there's an indirect translation with the same wording as I chose, meaning that my sentence is now a duplicate. I'm not sure how to deal with this situation.

> This should be reverted back, I think.
+1

You can simply tag it [archaic].

I have to join the chorus calling for reversion; and it's worth noting that two of the hymns that CK cites date from about 1900, which makes them far from archaic. What's going on here--and the trap I fell into (and shall without doubt fall into again)--is that our individual experiences even of our native languages is very limited: there are usages, even widespread usages, that we never encounter. It's perfectly reasonable to comment, "This sounds wrong to me"; but as soon as evidence of authentic usage is produced, we must give way.

I reverted it. I don't want to be an advanced contributor until I understand better how things work here, but in the meantime, isn't there an @-style tag that I can use to indicate that I'd like someone else to tag it? Something like "@archaic"?

I understand halfb1t's point. However, I'd say that language that native speakers have only encountered in circa-1900 hymns really does qualify as archaic (or perhaps regional). Someone who spoke or wrote in 1910 slang, for instance, would sound decidedly out-of-date (if they could be understood at all).

I think it comes down to the purpose that Tatoeba is meant to serve for most of its users. I would think that most would try to avoid using out-of-date, or otherwise restricted expressions. The existence of an [archaic] tag helps, though I don't know whether ordinary users see it when they look up a sentence. I wonder whether there are also tags that indicate that a sentence uses regional English, though I imagine that that tagging all UK-isms, US-isms, and Australia-, Canada-, (etc.) isms would not be practical.

Is there a list of tags?

I added a tag "archaic english".
Is this okay for you?
You could also add a comment to your sentence, so that other users get information about the context etc.

Tamy, thanks for adding the tag. Thanks also for pointing out that users can get an idea of context and restrictions from comments (even without tags).

>What's going on here--and the trap I fell into (and shall without doubt fall into again)--is that our individual experiences even of our native languages is very limited: there are usages, even widespread usages, that we never encounter.

Precisely !
If you understand this, you understand it all !

This is not archaic English (before 1100). Not even archaic Modern English (before 1600). This usage was current in 1900, and is quite likely current today--at least among singers of certain kinds of hymns. "Archaic" is not a synonym for "outside the experience of some Tatoeba contributor."

>Someone who spoke or wrote in 1910 slang, for instance, would sound decidedly out-of-date (if they could be understood at all).

In Frank Norris's 1899 novel McTeague, a character praises something (a picnic?) by saying it was "out of sight." Slang then, slang now. Ununderstandable? Hardly.

> language that native speakers have only encountered in circa-1900 hymns really does qualify as archaic (or perhaps regional)

Has anyone any evidence that native speakers have encountered this usage _only_ in circa-1900 hymns. A particular attestation of usage is not evidence of restricted usage. No particular person's non-experience is evidence of restricted usage. No reasonable interpretation of the word "archaic" allows its use to describe the English of 100 years ago.

>I think it comes down to the purpose that Tatoeba is meant to serve for most of its users.

The opinions of particular contributors regarding Tatoeba's purpose(s) are interesting, but there is a great gulf between interesting and normative.

>I would think that most would try to avoid using out-of-date, or otherwise restricted expressions.

The opinions of particular contributors about the behaviors or intentions of other contributors are interesting, nothing more.

Every register provides examples of restricted usage--both restricted to and restricted from. Some contributors evidently make an effort to include examples of restricted usage. Many such examples are excellent in that they are grammatical, authentic, natural, and common. Tags like "vulgar" are helpful. Tags like "archaic english," which misuse the adjectives they employ and are based on no evidence (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) are worse than useless.

I have made many suggestions. Some have been followed, some not. In some cases where my suggestion has not been followed, my opinion remains unchanged; in others my opinion has been changed by others' comments; in some cases my suggestions have been clearly shown to be wrong. This is both par for the course and a Good Thing.

Inspired by halfb1t's arguments I changed the tag from "archaic english" to "outdated".
Any objections?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/all-in-all.html gives an example of this usage from 1991.

The big question is "How would you know that a particular usage was outdated?" For an uncommon usage of an otherwise common phrase, there is only one credible way: authority, which can be backed up by a citation of the work of some lexicographer(s) or historian(s) of language.

When the question regards a phrase _qua_ phrase,
as opposed to its use with a particular meaning,
you could look for its extinction on Google's Ngram Viewer; but would you see it disappear? Maybe. More likely you would see it shrink and then linger; and if some Tatoeba contributor has never seen it, will that be a surprise?