We've all heard the old cliché but how often have we stopped to wonder why people more often say "All that shines is not gold." when they should say "Not all that shines is gold."? These two versions of the cliché mean two quite different things. "All that shines is not gold." means none of the shiny things in existance are gold. Gold is gold. Gold shines. Therefore something that shines is gold. "All that shines is not gold." is false. "Not all that shines is gold." means somethings which shine are not gold, this is what people are trying to say. I'd heard other examples of this kind of mistake. Why do people keep making these illogical statements? Don't people care whether what they actually say is what they actually mean?
In fact no.
When people something like "all cats are not grey" it doesn't mean "no cats are grey". People say "not all cats are grey" these days but traditionally the correct way to say this is "all cats are not grey". Maybe this is obsolescent though.
The original I think was by William Shakespeare: "All that glisters is not gold". All others are unlicensed imitations.
The saying usually contains the word "glitters" not "shines". I got it a bit wrong but still, whether it's "glitters", "shines" or "glisters", it is more often "... not gold." rather than "Not all ..."
Okay, fair enough, it's an old saying dating back at least as far as Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice (ii.vii.66) but I still find it a bit illogical. Was it Shakespeare who coined the phrase or was it around before the play? If it does belong to the Bard then, fair enough, we shouldn't misquote, let it be put in all its illogical glory "All that glisters is not gold." Sure, let old proverbs be, not all that is part of the English language is logical.
However, people use this grammatical construction in other contexts. I wasn't aware that there was some kind of tradition behind it. Whether it's the traditionally correct way of saying it or not it's at best abiguous. I can't agree that "all cats are not grey" means "not all cats are grey". I'd know what you meant because I know that the logical interpretation of what you said ("no cats are grey") is not true. This doesn't mean that what you said was true, I simply understood the error.
If you say, for example, "All Americans are not fat.", "All British don't have crooked teeth.", "All Australians don't drink beer.", "All Hollywood movies don't have happy endings." people might well understand you because they are familar with these topics. However, if you're talking about someting more obscure they are likely to take you literally. If I say "All the shirts in my cupboard are not white.", what are you going to think I mean? Quirky old sayings aside, statements like these are mistakes (unless they are meant to mean what they actually do mean logically).
I did a search on the web and this is what I came up with.
I found "All that shines is not gold." 78 times.
I found "Not all that shines is gold." 38 times.
I found "All that glitters is not gold." 6,830 times.
I found "Not all that glitters is gold." 1,020 times.
I found "All that glisters is not gold." 1,030 times.
I found "Not all that glisters is gold." 9 times.
I also found this interesting site (which doesn't seem to agree with me either)
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/595431
Everyone gets the "web search results" they deserve. There is a difference though between spoken English and what people put as the correct way in Grammar books. I suspect if you had to use perfect language to show how clever and educated you were (like a Barrister/Attorney) you would use "All Lawyers are not crooks". But yes if you use in a conversation "All my girlfriends are not pub-ugly" you would get funny looks at best.
This is like "none". The correct way is "none of my friends HAS false teeth". But most people would say "none of my friends HAVE false teeth".
Pug not pub. I need a coffee...
BTW Shakespeare's language being considered really top quality emerged only in the nineteenth century. Before then, he was only really admired for his talents as a dramatist. Clever and beautiful language was pretty common in "no-TV" educated Elizabethan England. His poetry and plays are beautiful but as the final word in language disputes, Shakespeare is not as reliable as some may think.
Shakespeare was a poet. The style was exploitive of English, plays on words, poetic syntax, etc. I, myself, don't know whether or not he coined "all that glitters is not gold," but it's roots are definitely poetic in nature. So, to answer the question, it's not a mistake, just one of the old phrases English is full of, still in use today. :)
What do you mean "Everyone gets the 'web search results' they deserve."? In spoken English you usually hear "All that glitters is not gold." but other versions are floating around. By posting the results of my search I wasn't trying to prove anything. The web is just one of the many places that you can find English and the search engine I used isn't perfect.
I only tried a few different possible variations on the phrase. I could have tried the expression with "glistens" instead of "glitters". The results I got don't prove anything but they indicate that I'm probably right when I say "All that glitters is not gold." is the most popular version of the saying but there are a whole bunch of different ways of putting it.
"All that glitters is not gold." is neither a correct quote of Shakespeare nor strictly logical. I found the more logical "Not all that glitters is gold." about as many times as the more faithful "All that glisters is not gold." but, yes, it was only a web-search.
It's a good point you make that Shakespeare is not necessarily reliable as a final word in language disputes. He is a well-respected author though. If the original was by Shakespeare then I'd have to agree that all others are unlicensed imitations. Shakespeare or not an author deserves to be quoted correctly regardless of whether what (s)he wrote was grammatically correct, logical, spelt correctly, politically correct, etc.
Though, if you're going to misquote him then you might as well get the logic in order. Why say "All that glitters is not gold."? Maybe it wasn't actually coined by Shakespeare though. Maybe it is just an old saying. I'm ready to accept "All that glitters is not gold." as an old proverb. Yes, English is full of old sayings not all of which are logical.
We all know that when you say "All that glitters is not gold." you really mean "Not all that glitters is gold." I'd have used the latter so as to be logical but you've pointed out that Shakespeare wrote something else so I'd quote him correctly in future.
That said, however, I'm sticking to my guns when I say this kind of thing in other contexts is illogical. If I said "All the people in the room are not married." you'd surely draw the conclusion that everyone here is either a bachelor or a spinster. This would be the logical conclusion, this is exactly what I'd have said. This construction has the potential to be misused. I'm interested in your claim that this is traditionally correct though.
Of course, you'd usually use "no" or "none" rather than "all" with "not", e.g. "None of the people in the room is married." You'd probably use "some" with "not" rather than "not all" too, e.g. "Some cats not grey."
I remembered this morning that in French they say "N'est pas or - tout ce qui brille". Which means the same as All that glitters/glisters is not gold". Is it from French? Or is it perhaps from Latin? The Dutch say "Het is niet al(les) goud wat er blinkt." Does anyone know of the same phrase in other languages?
German: "es ist nicht alles Gold, was glänzt"
I did some checking, and it seems to be a phrase in use.
Bill the Bard was interested in the ryhthm of language since most of his plays were written in blank verse - that is rhythmic language without many rhymes, or weak ones. If he wrote "All that glisters/glitters is not gold" (and I'm not saying he did) then perhaps it sounded better than "Not everything that glitters/glisters is gold" in the context. The meaning might also have been reasonably clear in the context. The saying probably had been around for centuries in one form or another by the time he used it.
Poetic licence: rhythm over logic: an interseting point.
I repeat, the correct formula has been "all x are/is not X". The way we talk now is a modern development.
Sometimes, we tend to look at sentences in a LOGICAL WAY. Logic could mean a COMMON way of saying things or a more ACCEPTABLE WAY of saying things, and another one would be GRAMMATICALLY correct.
Perhaps for the phrase " All that glitters is not gold " might not make sense as it seems, but picture it in a different way. Sometimes we needed some imagination ...