"All that glitters" or "Not all that glitters"?

Question

In the phrase finder (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/all-that-glitters-is-not-gold.html) I found the "correct" syntax of the saying: "All that glitters is not gold," and that's fine. The saying trips off the tongue quite nicely, I guess, which is good in and of itself.

I've also read the OP's question at "All that is gold does not glitter", which does not really pertain to my question, which is this:

How does the logically "wrong" syntax become accepted and traditional?

In other words, for other than purely stylistic reasons, is there a mini-theory which explains the phenomenon?

I realize that people prefer on purely stylistic grounds the peculiar syntax of a given saying or quotation. As I said, sometimes the way that words come trippingly off our tongues is sufficient reason for embracing a saying exactly as worded. I also realize that some sayings become accepted into the repertory of a culture's proverbs by simply being repeated over the span of generations.

Nevertheless, despite its seeming almost fungible with "All that glitters is not gold," "Not all that glitters is gold" is preferable, logically, is it not? After all, if gold is NOT among all things that glitter, then why does it glitter? I mean, it does glitter, doesn't it?

Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of this. Perhaps it's a non-issue. Perhaps language just evolves that way sometimes, and there is nothing necessarily illogical or irrational about it. Even if there is something illogical or seemingly irrational about it, language is, after all, illogical (if not irrational) at times. As the young people say today in their quasi-profound, ersatz way, "It is what it is."

To wrap things up, I've posed at least three questions:

Does the basis for an answer to my question come from people's stylistic preferences?

Does the basis for an answer to my question come from the phenomenon of perseveration? Or,

Does the basis for an answer to my question come from some other explanation (or a combination of question one and question two and some other explanation)?

If I get one down vote, I'll delete the post, but I'm really curious about this!

Chaucer: But all thing which that schyneth as the gold / Ne is no gold, as I have herd it told Shakespeare: All that glisters is not gold; / Often have you heard that told: / Many a man his life hath sold / But my outside to behold: Tolkien: 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. — tchrist, Jun 08 '13 at 01:00
In short, set phrases handed down from time immemorial, or even from the 12th century, often keep the archaic style of phrasing long after that style has gone out of productive use in the language. — tchrist, Jun 08 '13 at 01:03
Thank you. As I'm fond of saying, there's more than one way to stuff a turkey! Shakespeare's wording was brilliant, but then so too was Chaucer's. So you're saying, in effect, the reason is the obduracy of perseveration? (I do not mean in the psychologically aberrant sense of perseveration, of course.) — rhetorician, Jun 08 '13 at 01:11
It's a good line; and it's perfectly good Elizabethan syntax, a negation of the proposition that all that glisters is gold. Compare "We were not all unkind, nor all deserve / The common stroke of war. [...] All have not offended. / For those that were, it is not square to take / On those that are, revenges/" - TA,V,4 — StoneyB on hiatus, Jun 08 '13 at 01:25
@tchrist: The style is still productive. Consider "Everything is not what it seems". — Peter Shor, Jun 08 '13 at 13:17
Things are seldom what they seem; skim milk masquerades as cream. — John Lawler, Jun 08 '13 at 16:17
@PeterShor: Shouldn't that be "Not everything is what it seems"? (a joke!) (The first time I posted this remark, I inadvertently addressed it to tchrist.) — rhetorician, Jun 08 '13 at 16:35
...is not gold" said the donkey as he micturated in the moonlight. — Elliot, Jul 27 '20 at 03:46
I'm a bit confused why you've referenced "All that is gold does not glitter", that line is a deliberate reversal of the normal "all that glitters isn't gold", and its meaning in context is clear. The person who posed that other question seemed to be trying to impose "logic" (in a mathematical sense) onto the wording, but English doesn't work that way. — nnnnnn, Jul 27 '20 at 05:50

score 2 · Answer 1 · answered Jun 08 '13 at 06:30

2

These versions are fungible amongst those who are familiar with the phrase, and its intended meaning. For a large number of people, merely saying "glitters; not gold" will invoke the phrase as well, albeit it slightly indirectly.

People who are culturally fluent in a language can pick out intent, as well as literal meanings.

answered Jun 08 '13 at 06:30

Hack Saw

1,188

3

Intent is important, I grant you. Being culturally literate myself, I know what the saying means, and I'm not in favor of changing it. Language is a tapestry, with many interesting skeins of meanings, connotations, shadings, and poesies. I enjoy a good metaphor as well as the next guy, and figures of speech do make my ears perk up and sometimes enhance my listening and retention. When I was a kid, I couldn't figure out what "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want" meant. "Why wouldn't someone want the Lord as their shepherd?" I wondered. Years later, I learned what it meant. – rhetorician Jun 08 '13 at 15:26

score 0 · Answer 2 · edited Feb 04 '23 at 01:58

0

Only recently I realised for myself that Shakespeare’s phrase “All that glitters is not gold” is not grammatically correct. In context of the play, one understands what is intended and, like I, does not necessarily question its propriety.

However, the 12th-century expression in Latin - “Non omne quod nitet aurum est” - which is correct logically (and shouldn’t English expression be so?) was lifted imperfectly by Shakespeare.

The Latin translation “Not everything that glitters is gold” is logically, grammatically and gratifyingly correct.

Although reluctant to challenge Shakespeare, who remains a guiding light for me, I do believe he made just this one teensy mistake!

edited Feb 04 '23 at 01:58

tchrist

134,759

answered Feb 04 '23 at 00:22

Kay Jenkins

1

2

In Shakespeare's time, it was perfectly grammatically correct. The English language was not strictly mathematically logical then (it still isn't). – Peter Shor Feb 04 '23 at 00:34
Interesting to hear that! I guess I won't further have to disturb his bones, then? – Katianna Feb 04 '23 at 01:59
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Feb 04 '23 at 03:09
That's not what Shakespeare wrote. He wrote glisters, not glitters nor glistens. But that doesn't change the issues involved here. – tchrist Feb 04 '23 at 15:20

"All that glitters" or "Not all that glitters"?

2 Answers2