# All that glitters is not gold.



## jokker

All that glitters is not gold.

The dictionary says that "All that glitters is not gold" means that "*Not all* the things that glitters are gold", which means that "some of them are gold, and some are not".

How strange!! I am puzzled.

You see: *All that* glitters *is not* gold. Doesn't it deny all the things tht glitters are(?) gold??

Could you please show me how to understand it correctly? Thank you in advance.


----------



## emma42

This is, in fact, a mis-quote from a Thomas Gray poem. It should read *All that glisters* is not gold.

It means that just because something glitters/glisters/looks like gold, it does not mean that it* is* gold.

I do agree that it is ambiguous and I'm not surprised you found it confusing!


----------



## Outsider

It is an unusual (archaic?) syntax, Jokker, but it does mean what Emma has just said.


----------



## foxfirebrand

This AE speaker has always found "all that glisters is not gold" annoying.  Quotes from poems are set phrases of a sort, and this dumbass example has become chiseled in stone.

In other contexts we'd say "not all women are docile by nature" (to pick an example at random-- wonder why that peculiar one?).  "All women are not docile by nature" sounds very much like a...like a...

Well it sounds kinda true, now that I think about it.  In today's postmodern world, I mean.

Anyway, Outsider has a solid point.  I get so annoyed by the original "poetic" expression that I'm tempted to say it's just plain _wrong.
.
_


----------



## emma42

Wow, you really HATE this expression, don't you?!

I agree (if this is what you are saying) that the set phrase is "All that glitters is not gold" because that is what (nearly) everyone says.  When they say it.  And I hope they don't say it anywhere near you, Fox!


----------



## maxiogee

I don't see it as ambiguous - it is quite straightforward - all that X is not Y = some X is Y, but some is not.
*All that have red hair are not Irish* = some are, some aren't.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> This is, in fact, a mis-quote from a Thomas Gray poem. It should read *All that glisters* is not gold.



I have it as *Morocco* in Shakespeare's _The Merchant of Venice_, act II, scene vii.
"All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:"

Gray's poem Ode on a Favourite Cat Drowned in a Tub of Gold Fishes* has the lines

"Not all that tempts your wandering eyes
And heedless hearts is lawful prize,
Nor all that glisters gold!"

Which, as he lived 1716 - 1771, is *surely* referential to Shakespeare - who died one hundred years before Gray was born?


----------



## emma42

Ah yes, the Merchant!  Sorry about that - I just really like the Gray poem and always think of that when I hear the phrase.

I do think it's ambiguous.  It could mean *everything that glisters is not gold *or *not everything that glisters is gold, but some glistering things may be gold.*


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> It could mean *everything that glisters is not gold *



But can it really mean that? Surely we 'know' that some glistering stuff 'is' gold, that's why we might be deluded into think that all of it is.


----------



## jokker

Thank you, Emma, outsider, foxfirebrand and maxiogee, for your witty explanations and help. I really appreciate it.  


			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> all that X is not Y = some X is Y, but some is not.
> *All that have red hair are not Irish* = some are, some aren't.


And I think the formula is very helpful.


----------



## emma42

I was thinking of the possible ambiguity from the point of view of a non native speaker.


----------



## nycphotography

Like it or not, set phrases and idioms are not ambiguous, they are often grammatically sketchy, and they are defined by *usage*. Usage (and context) tells us exactly, unequivacally, what they mean. It can't mean anything else, because, well, usage tells us it can't. Until some clever writer makes it mean something else that is.

You can't argue with usage. Set phrases and idioms just have to be learned for what they are by foreign speakers: Idioms. Set phrases that mean set things, gramamar and dictionary be damned. They wouldn't need to be called set phrases if the meaning were necessarily obvious.

This particular phrase means: You can't assume something is made of gold just because it glitters/glisters. That's all it means.

That's the thing about poetic license... it allows a writer to say things in a creative poetic way, perhaps not using the usual, standard, or even correct syntax, and they are still understood perfectly (by native speakers). Well assuming the poem makes any sense in the first place that is.


----------



## Tabac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I don't see it as ambiguous - it is quite straightforward - all that X is not Y = some X is Y, but some is not.
> *All that have red hair are not Irish* = some are, some aren't.


 
"All" is the subject of the sentence, and the verb that follows must agree, and the complement must be taken to refer to the subject. 

Let me clarify by making "all" an adjective: _All people are happy _[no confusion: subject = complement]. _All people are not happy _[nobody is happy: subject = complement]. To imply that some are not and some are happy, we need _Not all people are happy_.

I fully understand the confusion of a non-native speaker. Natives, and probably many non-natives make the mistake so often that it sounds "correct". It may be "correct" (by usage), but it certainly doesn't hold up to parsing.


----------



## panjandrum

Perhaps if we spoke fluent Elizabethan(I) English there would be no ambiguity.  

By now, in Elizabethan(II) English, we are likely to think of <not gold> as an attribute of everything that glitters - or glisters.

All the cows are lying down.
Some of the cows stand up.

Now:
All the cows are not lying down.
- and -
All the cows are not standing up.


----------



## foxfirebrand

How can "all that glisters" mean the same as "some portion of what glisters?" You seem to be saying that both phrases, added to "is not gold" are unambiguously identical in meaning.

"All" strongly implies a totality, and what is attributed to that "all" is distributed uniformly and without exception. Otherwise "some" or "not all" is called for, at least to my ear. I know that the ungrammatical expression has become understandable, by dint of repetition. That's what causes that vein to bulge, and the steam to come out of my ears.

I would still say that if all the cows were lying and some of them stood up-- not all the cows would be standing.  I would _not_ say "all the cows are not standing."

"All the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't..." doesn't mean that some of them could.
.


----------



## panjandrum

I'm pretty sure I'm not saying anything is unambiguous.

But I am toying with the strangeness of the language.

<All the cows> are <lying down>. TRUE

Some cows stand up.

<All the cows> are <lying down>. FALSE

<All the cows> are <not lying down>. FALSE

Now if only we get all those cows to behave like sheep and do the same things at the same time, there would be no dilemma at all.


----------



## jokker

emma42 said:
			
		

> I was thinking of the possible ambiguity from the point of view of a non native speaker.


Although I am not a native speaker, but I did know that you were trying to understand what puzzled me from the point of view of a non native speaker. Thank you for your thoughtful of my question and for your help. 


			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> It could mean *everything that glisters is not gold *or *not everything that glisters is gold, but some glistering things may be gold. *


What you wrote is exactly what I thought when I saw the sentence! As if you are reading my mind.


----------



## Outsider

panjandrum said:
			
		

> <All the cows> are <lying down>. TRUE
> 
> Some cows stand up.
> 
> <All the cows> are <lying down>. FALSE
> 
> <All the cows> are <not lying down>. FALSE


But if you wanted to say that no cow is lying down, you would be more likely to use the phrase "standing":

<All the cows> are <standing>,

or perhaps simply

<No cow> is <lying down>.

Using "<All the cows> are <not lying down>" in this context would seem artificial, at least to me.

I don't think that "All that glitters is not gold" is ambiguous or incorrect at all. It's just an unusual, but legitimate, turn of phrase. Using the same sentence to mean "Nothing that glitters is gold" would seem weirder to me.


----------



## jokker

Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't think that "All that glitters is not gold" is ambiguous or incorrect at all. It's just an unusual, but legitimate, turn of phrase. Using the same sentence to mean "Nothing that glitters is gold" would seem weirder to me.


 
But, to me, if the sentence were in this way:
*Not all that glitters is gold.*

The sentence would look more simple and be more easier to understand.  Don't you think so?


----------



## Outsider

On the other hand, it would not be as expressive. 

The author wants to trick us into uncritically accepting the foregone conclusion...

*All that glitters... all that glitters... all that glitters is...*

...but then slap our wrists for fallling for it:

*NOT gold!*


----------



## jokker

Outsider said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it would not be as expressive.
> 
> The author wants to trick us into uncritically accepting the foregone conclusion...
> 
> *All that glitters... all that glitters... all that glitters is...*
> 
> ...but then slap our wrists for fallling for it:
> 
> *NOT gold!*


 ............. ..........That's a good explanation!


----------



## jokker

nycphotography said:
			
		

> You can't argue with usage. Set phrases and idioms just have to be learned for what they are by foreign speakers: Idioms. Set phrases that mean set things, gramamar and dictionary be damned. They wouldn't need to be called set phrases if the meaning were necessarily obvious.


Hmm... I use your explanation to think about Chinese and I can't agree with you more. It truly makes sense. 



> This particular phrase means: You can't assume something is made of gold just because it glitters/glisters. That's all it means.


Thank you. 



> That's the thing about poetic license... it allows a writer to say things in a creative poetic way, perhaps not using the usual, standard, or even correct syntax, and they are still understood perfectly (by native speakers). Well assuming the poem makes any sense in the first place that is.


Agreed. 



> Like it or not, set phrases and idioms are not ambiguous, they are often grammatically sketchy, and they are defined by *usage*. Usage (and context) tells us exactly, unequivocally, what they mean. It can't mean anything else, because, well, usage tells us it can't. Until some clever writer makes it mean something else that is.


I like this paragraphy, especially the last sentence.  The thing truly goes this way.

Thank you very much.


----------



## french4beth

Bottom line: don't be deceived by outward appearances.



P.S. Another thought came to mind - seeing small children pick up shiny rocks with gold flecks and yelling, "Look! I found some gold! I'm rich!"


i like shiny things!


----------



## jokker

Tabac said:
			
		

> "All" is the subject of the sentence, and the verb that follows must agree, and the complement must be taken to refer to the subject.


Yes! 
The sentence "*All* that glitter*s* *is* not gold." use singular verb, which means that it takes "*All*" as a unit, therefore the "not" should deny the "All" is not gold. 




> Let me clarify by making "all" an adjective: _All people are happy _[no confusion: subject = complement]. _All people are not happy _[nobody is happy: subject = complement]. To imply that some are not and some are happy, we need _*Not all people are happy*_.


Yes! I agree with you. 
"Not all that glitters is gold" would be clear and wouldn't be ambiguous.




> I fully understand the confusion of a non-native speaker. Natives, and probably many non-natives make the mistake so often that it sounds "correct". It may be "correct" (by usage), but it certainly doesn't hold up to parsing.


It truly doesn't hold up to parsing!! -- especially from the point of a non-native speaker.

However, as others said in previous posts, this kind of sentence structure is a set phrase/ idiom, and has its own reason of being in this way. So I guess the only way for me is to learn it.


----------



## jokker

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> This AE speaker has always found "all that glisters is not gold" annoying.


Somehow, this comforts me. 


> Quotes from poems are set phrases of a sort, *and this dumbass example has become chiseled in stone*.


 Then, this sentence is a classic.



> In other contexts we'd say "not all women are docile by nature" (to pick an example at random-- wonder why that peculiar one?). "All women are not docile by nature" sounds very much like a...like a...


Like what?? You can't just say things in half! It's not complete. 




> Anyway, Outsider has a solid point. I get so annoyed by the original "poetic" expression that I'm tempted to say it's just plain _wrong._
> _._


You think so? As Tabac said (if I understood correctly) that the phrase might have been used wrongly, but people just continued to use it?


----------



## jokker

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But can it really mean that? Surely we 'know' that some glistering stuff 'is' gold, that's why we might be deluded into think that all of it is.


Hmm...I guess I have to stop thinking this phrase.

First, it was confusing.
Then, your help made me understand it.
Later, more thoughts confused my mind.
Now, I have to stop to clear up my mind.

All that X is not Y. 
And set phrases and idioms are just need to be learned.
Hmm, yes, that's it. Done.


----------



## panjandrum

I don't believe this was originally poetic licence.
It sounds to me like Shakespearean English - and as I said before, it carried no ambiguity at the time.

It still carries no ambiguity for me, no more than "Everyone can't go to the lunch," (someone has to be at the reception desk).


----------



## lizzeymac

In Cambridge Shakespeare they "translate" this phrase to

Not all things that glister are gold
OR 
Not everything that glisters is gold.

If you want to see how convoluted yet beautiful English can be, start plowing through Shakespeare. ;-)


----------



## AWhiteFlame

All the cows are standing. = 100% of cows are now standing.
All the cows are not standing. = 100% cows are doing anything but standing.
Not all the cows are standing. = Some cows are standing, some are doing elsewise.

The difference is simply what the adverb 'not' is modifying. In "All the cows are not standing", "not" is modifying "is", which means that they are to be not described by the given predicate -- "standing". In "Not all the cows are standing", we have "not" modifying "all", which means the word "all" no longer means "all-encompassingly", which then gives us the "some are, some aren't" ambiguation.
 That's my interpretation, anyway.


----------



## foxfirebrand

panjandrum said:
			
		

> It sounds to me like Shakespearean English - and as I said before, it carried no ambiguity at the time.


Again I have to disagree with you, panj.  Elizabethan English _was_ ambiguous, as inchoate in form as its spelling was chaotic.

Middle English had reached a certain comfort level, but something happened after the "Great Vowel Shift" of the 14th century, and the language became catch-as-catch-can-- a vehicle for improvisation and coinage.  Most of the great artists of the day exploited the ambiguities inherent in a language in upheaval, a language being born, you might say.

Do I have to stoop to referring to _"But me no buts"_ to make my point?  The idiomatic level of English was up for grabs, and people were making shit up left and right.

I still contend that if you strip away the patina of familiarity that causes a phrase to "make sense" to the well-inculcated native, "all that glisters is not gold" is counterintuitively constructed.  It takes an act of wilful imagination to do so, and I can well understand the reluctance to tamper with patina-- it's one of my favorite things in this world.

That's why I only talk about my own subjective response to the phrase, and say I'm only _tempted_ to call it "just plain wrong."
.


----------



## emma42

Shakespeare did use ambiguous phrases all the time.


----------



## lizzeymac

Outsider said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it would not be as expressive.
> 
> The author wants to trick us into uncritically accepting the foregone conclusion...
> 
> *All that glitters... all that glitters... all that glitters is...*
> 
> ...but then slap our wrists for fallling for it:
> 
> *NOT gold!*



*Excellent!*


----------



## la reine victoria

Hi Jokker,



> But, to me, if the sentence were in this way:
> *Not all that glitters is gold.*


 
By writing the sentence this way you have shown that you clearly understand the meaning of "All that glitters is not gold".   But be sure to keep the original.  



LRV


----------



## jokker

panjandrum said:
			
		

> It still carries no ambiguity for me, no more than "Everyone can't go to the lunch," (someone has to be at the reception desk).


Oh! panjandrum, that's the advantage of being a native English speaker!! (Enigma: Then why outsider can understand? He is a non-native speaker, and so I am. Oh, oh, envy!!) Just kidding! Too bad that my English is not good enough to tell a good joke. 

Study time:


			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> Like it or not, set phrases and idioms are not ambiguous, they are often grammatically sketchy, and they are defined by *usage*. Usage (and context) tells us exactly, unequivocally, what they mean. It can't mean anything else, because, well, usage tells us it can't.
> 
> You can't argue with usage. Set phrases and idioms just have to be learned for what they are by foreign speakers: Idioms. Set phrases that mean set things, gramamar and dictionary be damned. They wouldn't need to be called set phrases if the meaning were necessarily obvious_._


 
I agree on the point, so I will just learn it, though I still can't understand how come such sentence means such meaning. I totally can't parse it.


I will remember it in this way. 
All that X is not Y. = Some X is Y, but some is not.
Everyone can't go to the lunch. = Not everyone can go to the lunch, because some have to be at the receeption desk.

Honestly, I will understand "Everyone can't go to the lunch." to be "All of you can't go to the lunch." if panjandrum didn't give the example and added the explanation.


----------



## jokker

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> In Cambridge Shakespeare they "translate" this phrase to
> 
> Not all things that glister are gold
> OR
> Not everything that glisters is gold.


Thank you for offering this! 



> If you want to see how convoluted yet beautiful English can be, start plowing through Shakespeare. ;-)


Oh, no, this one is convoluted enough! And...expressive...very much! 

Thank you for the suggestion about reading Shakespeare. But I guess the level of my English would block me form reading it. (I would like to know him, but he wouldn't let me to know him.)  One whose English is good is able to read Shakespeare. I hope I can one day.


----------



## Outsider

jokker said:
			
		

> Oh! panjandrum, that's the advantage of being a native English speaker!! (Enigma: Then why outsider can understand? He is a non-native speaker, and so I am. Oh, oh, envy!!) Just kidding! Too bad that my English is not good enough to tell a good joke.
> 
> Study time:
> 
> I agree on the point, so I will just learn it, though I still can't understand how come such sentence means such meaning. I totally can't parse it.
> 
> I will remember it in this way.
> All that X is not Y. = Some X is Y, but some is not.
> Everyone can't go to the lunch. = Not everyone can go to the lunch, because some have to be at the receeption desk.
> 
> Honestly, I will understand "Everyone can't go to the lunch." to be "All of you can't go to the lunch." if panjandrum didn't give the example and added the explanation.


You just have to learn these things as you go along. The sentence wouldn't work in my native language, either (with this meaning).

I notice that your native language is Chinese. Perhaps this is part of the difficulty. From what I know, word order is very important in languages such as Chinese. If you take a word away from its "place", you can get a completely different meaning. 

But in European languages you often have some freedom to move words around without changing the meaning of a sentence. Modern English is normally an exception to that, but the construction we've been discussing is a little archaic.

Just be thankful that you're not learning Latin, or Greek.


----------



## jokker

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Hi Jokker,
> By writing the sentence this way you have shown that you clearly understand the meaning of "All that glitters is not gold".  But be sure to keep the original.
> 
> LRV


No, dear la reine victoria, it's because all of your help have shown me that what the phrase really means. Not beacuse I myself really understand it. (Actually, I still don't understand how come such sentence patter would mean such meaing.  It can't be parsed.)


----------



## jokker

Outsider said:
			
		

> Just be thankful that you're not learning Latin, or Greek.


O.K. That's a relief.


----------



## la reine victoria

Everything which is gold-coloured and shiny looks as if it is made with real gold.

But only a special test will show which items are real gold and which are imitation gold.


_*Everything which is (gold-coloured and) shiny is not necessarily gold.*_


LRV


----------



## rsweet

When I was a child, we used to collect "fool's gold," a rock (pyrite) with gold flecks on it. In California during the gold rush, miners used to pan for gold in streams and rivers, hoping to collect gold nuggets that washed downstream. I'm sure quite a few unexperienced miners thought this rock was the real thing. 

In this expression, "gold" is used in a broad sense to mean something of real value.


----------



## la reine victoria

_All who smile are not happy. _(Some are just pretending.)



LRV  (Happy)


----------



## Outsider

Perhaps there's a better way to explain this. The meaning of "All that glitters is not gold" is:

_All that glitters is not necessarily gold.
_
Meaning, some of it may be gold, but some of it may not be gold. I understand your confusion at the sentence well, but if you wanted to say that nothing that glitters is gold, I think you would have to use different words, for example:

_Anything that glitters is not gold.
_
The natives will correct me, but I think this sentence _would_ be understood as "If something glitters, then it's not gold."


----------



## jokker

Outsider said:
			
		

> Perhaps there's a better way to explain this. The meaning of "All that glitters is not gold" is:
> 
> _All that glitters is not necessarily gold. _


Hey, smart you!  This explanation is as good as maxiogee's formula!

Everyone can't go to the lunch," (someone has to be at the reception desk). -- Everyone can't necessarily go to the lunch. (How about this? Just adding "necessarily".  Another formula to solve this puzzle.)


----------



## la reine victoria

Outsider said:
			
		

> Perhaps there's a better way to explain this. The meaning of "All that glitters is not gold" is:
> 
> _All that glitters is not necessarily gold._
> 
> _*Anything that glitters is not gold.*_
> 
> *The natives will correct me, but I think this sentence would be understood as "If something glitters, then it's not gold*."


 

Sorry Outsider,

This is confusing the issue.  By using the sentences which I've underlined you are inferring that *gold doesn't glitter*.  You have to keep the word "*necessarily*"

*Anything* that glitters is not *necessarily* gold.

If something glitters, then it's not *necessarily* gold.



LRV


----------



## Outsider

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> By using the sentences which I've underlined you are inferring that *gold doesn't glitter*.


That's the meaning I intended to give to them. I was making a contrast between the sentences you underlined, and the one that Jokker has trouble understanding.


----------



## boonognog

Outsider said:
			
		

> _Anything that glitters is not gold.
> _
> The natives will correct me, but I think this sentence _would_ be understood as "If something glitters, then it's not gold."



Yes, the natives will correct you.   But I think what you are saying is correct, if what you mean is that the "obvious" meaning of this statement is not the "real" (somewhat idiomatic) meaning.  Any non-native speaker would take that sentence at face value.

But there is something about the 'not' in the statement that imparts the ambiguity in English.

*All cars left in the parking lot overnight are to be towed away.*
Obvious meaning.

*All cars left in the parking lot overnight are not to be towed away.*
Ambiguous.

The second sentence could mean one of the following:

All cars are safe overnight in the parking lot and will not be towed away.
Some cars left in the parking lot overnight will or may be towed away.
The placement of the 'not' also affects the meaning.  In its form above, the more likely meaning is #1.  If you move the 'not' to the beginning of the sentence ('Not all cars left in the parking lot overnight are to be towed away.'), then the only idiomatic meaning is #2.

At least that's my own interpretation as a native. 

-Tim


----------



## MrPedantic

Perhaps:

1. All is-not gold.
2. All is not-gold.

_________

Johnson says of Gray's Ode that it "ends in a pointed sentence of no relation to the purpose: if what glistered had been gold, the cat would not have gone into the water; and if she had, would not less have been drowned".

MrP


----------



## emma42

I like your simple and brief solution, MrP.

Johnson has a very good point.  I had never considered it before.


----------



## panjandrum

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Perhaps:
> 
> 1. All is-not gold.
> 2. All is not-gold.


Clear, and elegant.


----------



## Robbo

Shakespeare wrote poetically:

*All that glisters is not gold*

The idea (that one should not be fooled by superficialities) expressed in modern English unambiguously would most likely be:
*Not all that glitters is gold.  
OR:  
Just because something glitters, it doen't mean that it's gold.*

I agree with the earlier contributor who said Shakespeare's word order  leads the listener in a particular direction.

But we also need to refer to the original context to see why Shakespeare wrote it with that particular word order.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/merchant/full.html


All that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:

It's clear that the word order used was necessary to maintain the desired poetic rhythmn.

Nevertheless, by itself, it may not have been structurally "good English" in Elizabethan times and it is not standard English nowadays - it is an example of "poetic licence (license)".

Robbo

*Moderator Intervention*: WR Rules state that quotes shall not exceed four lines. Therefore, some material previously included in this post has been deleted.

Rejoinder from contributor:  (a) The quantity of words quoted was equivalent to less than four full lines; and (b) Shakespeare's writing is so old it is out of copyright.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Robbo said:
			
		

> It's clear that the word order used was necessary to maintain the desired poetic rhythm.


Bingo!

Not all that rhymes hath reason.
.


----------



## jokker

Hi~Robbo,

Thank you very much for your input! Simple, clear and methodical. 

Now the phrase seems to be more clear and familiar to me. 


			
				Robbo said:
			
		

> Shakespeare wrote poetically:
> 
> *All that glisters is not gold*
> 
> The idea (that one should not be fooled by superficialities) expressed in modern English unambiguously would most likely be:
> *Not all that glitters is gold. *
> *OR: *
> *Just because something glitters, it doen't mean that it's gold.*
> 
> I agree with the earlier contributor who said Shakespeare's word order leads the listener in a particular direction.
> 
> But we also need to refer to the original context to see why Shakespeare wrote it with that particular word order.
> 
> http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/merchant/full.html
> 
> 
> All that glitters is not gold;
> Often have you heard that told:
> Many a man his life hath sold
> But my outside to behold:
> 
> It's clear that the word order used was necessary to maintain the desired poetic rhythmn.
> 
> Nevertheless, by itself, it may not have been structurally "good English" in Elizabethan times and it is not standard English nowadays - it is an example of "poetic licence (license)".
> 
> Robbo


----------



## jokker

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Perhaps:
> 
> 1. All is-not gold.
> 2. All is not-gold.


Hi~ MrP,
AWhiteFlame said the same analysis as yours, just not that clear and elegant.


			
				AWhiteFlame said:
			
		

> The difference is simply what the adverb 'not' is modifying. In "All the cows are not standing", "not" is modifying "is", which means that they are to be not described by the given predicate -- "standing". In "Not all the cows are standing", we have "not" modifying "all", which means the word "all" no longer means "all-encompassingly", which then gives us the "some are, some aren't" ambiguation.
> That's my interpretation, anyway.


 
What I was wondering is that if this analysis, which I think makes pretty sense, is right, then it seems to conflict with the one that the word order used was necessary to maintain the desired poetic rhythmn.


----------



## scotu

Am I seeing a lot of split hairs here? Doesn't the expression simply mean that the unstated object called "all that glitters" probably isn't as valuable as it might appear.


----------



## jokker

scotu said:
			
		

> Am I seeing a lot of split hairs here? Doesn't the expression simply mean that the unstated object called "all that glitters" probably isn't as valuable as it might appear.


No, there truly is a question: the sentence structure / the word order.

After so many people's input and help, now we know the origin of the phrase and the reason of its word order.

I don't think we have split hairs.


----------



## scotu

jokker said:
			
		

> No, there truly is a question: the sentence structure / the word order.
> 
> After so many people's input and help, now we know the origin of the phrase and the reason of its word order.
> 
> I don't think we have split hairs.


 
Sorry, I missunderstood your original question. It was a good discussion, I didn't mean to be critical.


----------



## MrPedantic

jokker said:
			
		

> What I was wondering is that if this analysis, which I think makes pretty sense, is right, then it seems to conflict with the one that the word order used was necessary to maintain the desired poetic rhythmn.


 
Hello Jokker

I would say rather that the "word order analysis" may explain the poet's original choice of words, whereas the "ambiguous not" analysis (which you rightly credit to AWF) may explain the apparent ambiguity.

(My dictionary gives "All is not gold that glitters" as "proverbial", but unfortunately doesn't give a date for its first recorded appearance.)

MrP


----------



## jokker

Thank you very much, MrP.


----------



## THE SPANINGLISH

It means that somethings are not like they appear.


----------



## lizzeymac

Latin proverb: "Non omne quod nitet aurum est"  ('Not all that shines is gold.') 

"But all thing which that shineth as the gold / Ne is no gold, as I have herd it told"  Geoffrey Chaucer (1340-1400), Canterbury Tales. The Chanones Yemannes Tale, and many similar.

"All is not gold that glitters"  Chaucer as quoted by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547–1616) in 'Don Quixote'

Edmund Spenser (c. 1580) "Gold all is not that doth golden seem"

Shakespeare in 'The Merchant of Venice' in 1596, as above

First attested in the United States in the 'Winthrop Papers' (1636)

Dryden (1687) "All, as they say, that glitters is not gold"

"All that is gold does not glitter; not all those that wander are lost"
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, 1954

and another dozen cites...

Source: "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York)


----------



## Baby Marzipan

maxiogee said:


> is *surely* referential to Shakespeare - who died one hundred years before Gray was born?


 
Shakespear is the best known for this saying but like he says in his play
"All that glisters is not gold;
*Often have you heard that told:" (1596) *he was not the first.
In the 12th century Alain de Lille wrote "Do not hold everything gold that shines like gold". In 1553 Thomas Becon wrote in _The relikes of Rome_: "All is not golde that glistereth." (which I would say is my favorite version of the saying)
George Turberville, in _Tragical tales, (and other poems)_, 1587, wrote that "All is not gold that glistringly appeere.

In case anyone was wondering more about the sayings origin


----------



## Aardvark01

All that glitters is not gold = Not all that *looks* fair *is* fair. Let the *buyer* beware. Look beyond the surface because you might be getting something worth less than it appears.

This can be turned the other way 'round:

_All that is gold does not glitter,_
_Not all those who wander are lost;_ 
_The old that is strong does not wither,_ 
_Deep roots are not reached by the frost. (J.R.R.Tolkein)_ 

= Not all that *looks* foul *is* foul. Let the *seller* beware. Look beyond the surface because you might have something more valuable than you think.


----------



## JulianStuart

Hypothesis 1 : (All *X*) is (not *Y*).

All means "every single".  

Substituting yields

(*Every single thing that gli(s)t(t)ers*) is (not* gold*).

Ergo, gold does not glitter.

Something's obviously wrong 

Hypothesis 2

(Not all *X*) is (*Y*)

Substituting similarly 

(Not *every single thing that gli(s)t(t)ers*) is (*gold*)

Ahhhh, relief 

*Conclusion* : Hypothesis 1 is definitely not equivalent to Hypothesis 2


----------



## convex

panjandrum said:


> It still carries no ambiguity for me, no more than "Everyone can't go to the lunch," (someone has to be at the reception desk).



It is interesting that "all", when used in a negative sentence, conveys the exact same meaning as _some_.
Consider this situation where 3 people are sitting in a room with a sign saying:

*You may not talk in the room.*
means 0 people may talk.​
*All of you may not talk in the room.*
means 0, 1 or 2 people may talk.​
*Some of you may not talk in the room.*
means 0, 1 or 2 people may talk.​
So, in a positive sentence, "all" emphasizes uniformity; in a negative sentence, "all" changes its meaning to emphasize non-uniformity.

Now I feel really sad (and angry) that these two seemingly opposite words can be synonyms


----------

