Translation:We are all teachers.
It can be understood by a native English speaker but sounds less natural than "We are all teachers."
When one looks at the verb "to be", one would almost believe that "We all are teachers" would be wrong. This is because of the conjunctions (I am / You are / He,she,it is). Together they are the verb and forcing a word between of the syllables of the verb does not seem to be correct.
When spoken aloud "We all are ..." sounds like valid English to me only when "all" is preceded by a glottal stop (or nothing follows the word "are"). It's not a common construction, but (at least in Australian English) it still sees occasional use, when there's a very large emphasis on "all".
And the other southern English, American southern English, is famous for using 'all' in such constructions. We all knew that, right?
I am not sure if the grammar is correct (English speakers please?) but "都" can be either "all" and "both."
Yeah that's what I'm saying. It should be accepting "We both are teachers" as well as "Both of us are teachers". Cambridge dictionary approves that "we both" is a correct form. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/linking-words-and-expressions/both
I think it may have to do with the sentence not specifying how many people the 都 is referring to, as in, 2 or a number bigger than 2. So maybe it's supposed to be assumed as "all" as opposed to "both". Although since the meaning is kind of ambiguous, I can see how both answers should be accepted.
This is not a common word phrasing in English at least not most American English. We would normally change the sentence to "Both of us are teachers" referring specifically to 2 people.
"Both of us are teacher" is it wrong. (Btw i am not English is not my mother tongue)
Sorry, i write this comment totally wrong :) I am trying to say i English is not my mother tongue. (Actually it's quite obvious :/ )
I put- we are teachers. The word 'we' tells us that there are more than 1 person. So why do we need 'all'?