Talk:All that glitters is not gold

Removed "The statement "All that glitters is not gold" may seem literally incorrect by debesh agrawal [...]"[edit]

I deleted the following line:

The statement "All that glitters is gold" may seem literally incorrect, gold itself serving as a counterexample (gold glitters, but is gold).

While the phrase may be semantically interpreted to mean (Everything that glitters is (not gold)), it clearly means ((Not everything) that glitters is gold)), which is perfectly consistent with the grammatical construction of the phrase, so there is no reason to mention the former incorrect interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihendley (talk • contribs) 02:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sentence is grammatically incorrect and this should be mentioned. While Shakespeare obviously intended to say that not all shiny items are gold, his sentence actually means that no shiny items are gold. (Huey45 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Agree. It's not "perfectly consistent with the grammatical construction." The meaning of the phrase is obivous, but that doesn't mean it's grammatically correct, just as it was clear I meant "obvious," I still misspelled it. Ironically, gold doesn't glitter, it shines, so it is in fact true that nothing that glitters is gold. Nycbl1y (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4r1ohfnuhtdumog

Looking in the dictionary, "glitter" and "shine" appear to be essentially the same. Only someone with substantial knowledge of materials science would properly understand the difference if there is one. I'd still say Shakespeare made a grammatical error. (Huey45 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Malayalam==

Other languages[edit]

I just removed this section from the article:

Various expressions are used to convey similar idioms in other languages:

Malayalam: മിന്നുന്നതെല്ലാം പൊന്നല്ല – All that glitters is not gold.
polish - "Nie wszystko złoto co się świeci"
Hindi - हर चमकती चीज़ सोना नहीं होती

It does not add anything to the value of the article at the moment. It could be made encyclopedic by adding word-by-word literal translations, and stating the origin of the expressions in other languages. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research on Grammar[edit]

From [[1]], the lines of "Panning for gold often results in finding pyrite, nicknamed fool's gold, which reflects substantially more light than authentic gold does. Gold in its raw form appears dull and lusterless.[7] "Not all that glitters is gold" is an alternative and more correct formulation.[8][9]" were used as a response to consensus regarding the original research debates being held here about whether the phrase is grammatically correct. Pairing these lines together was an unofficial way of inserting Original Research, noted by how the lines changed from "The statement "All that glitters is not gold" may seem literally incorrect, gold itself serving as a counterexample (gold glitters, but is gold)." to what it is now.

As it stands, the grammatical meaning seems to fall directly into original research. Does the phrase mean "Nothing that glitters is gold," "The set of all things that glitter does not consist entirely of gold," or so forth? The added "Panning for gold often results in finding pyrite, nicknamed fool's gold, which reflects substantially more light than authentic gold does. Gold in its raw form appears dull and lusterless." is used to favor the first form while other listed examples "Non omne quod nitet aurum est" and "But al thyng which that shyneth as the gold / Nis nat gold, as that I have herd it told" favor the second.

As it stands, the line still constitutes original research (While raw gold does not glitter, whether Shakespeare was talking about raw gold or processed gold is not established). So if we're not going to leave the unofficial original research debate in then it should be taken out completely. 72.85.48.246 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proverbs should be correctly quoted[edit]

The correct form uses "glisters", as originally written. No well-educated person would use the incorrect dumbed-down form promoted in this article. Never. Is there any other quotation from Shakespeare which is similarly "modernised" or sloppily rendered with such approbation? I thought Wikipedia is about promoting truth and correctness, not fostering the habits of half-educated people? 212.104.155.43 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modern speakers aren't quoting Shakespeare, they are saying an old proverb that predates Shakespeare by at least 200 years. The wording of proverbs change over time, and what is probably the oldest written version of this one is in Chaucer's The House of Fame. Chaucer used "glareth" (glares), so you may as well say that Shakespeare got it wrong with "glisters" as say that modern speakers are wrong with "glitters". "Glitters" is easily the most common word used in modern English. Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]