"All that glisters is not gold" is logically incorrect.
Shakespeare should have written "Some that glisters is not gold" or "Not all that glisters is gold"
It's called poetic license.
PS, I love it. Someone criticizing Shakespeare for his use of language.
never heard glisters. always thought it was glistens or glitters.
welcome, Bryn!
"All that glisters is not gold" is logically incorrect.
Shakespeare should have written "Some that glisters is not gold" or "Not all that glisters is gold"
Bryn is quoting Anu's WAD entry, which uses "glister", and a quick google turns it up as Shakespeare's own. I've never heard it used, even in quoting the Bard, so it must have been changed over the years, for whatever reason. It is, in fact, a blood relative of "glisten". Which makes me curious to know if it is pronounced
glis ser or
glis ter. I can see (hear?) either one, but am drawn to the former. A little digging revealed "ofter" is a word, but couldn't find a pronunciation. I can't really see that as
of fer, but maybe it is. My IP (inner prescriptivist) detests the sound of
of ten, ever directing the tongue to
of fen, rhymed with "soften". Wow, I got rambling... Can you tell I'm off work today? I'm actually off all week, so y'all's in trouble... Thanks for the catalyst to interesting musings, Bryn, and welcome! :0)
Did anybody else notice that the Latin word "potis" (having the power) is uncannily reminiscent of the acronym "POTUS" (President of the United States)?
It's too bad they've stopped teachin Latin and formal logic (and statistics) as part of the basic knowledge base. You can't even begin to have a decent argument with many people because they haven't been taught to "correctly" interpret exists, somes, alls, nots, not alls, etc.
potis is "capable" as in "having the power/ability to do" but not "having the POWER" as in holding the reins. Potus itself is a drink or a bout of drinking - how about that?
. ,
It's too bad they've stopped teachin Latin and formal logic (and statistics) as part of the basic knowledge base. You can't even begin to have a decent argument with many people because they haven't been taught to "correctly" interpret exists, somes, alls, nots, not alls, etc.
potis is "capable" as in "having the power/ability to do" but not "having the POWER" as in holding the reins. Potus itself is a drink or a bout of drinking - how about that?
Right, on Myr. Too bad decent education has departed. Potis is able or capable. As for Logic
does anyone even remember the Ven circles? (Even I don't remember the spelling.)
Right, on Myr. Too bad decent education has departed.
The barbarians are at the gate, education's gone to hell and we're breeding a bunch of barely-literate morons - hasn't this been the standard refrain since Virgil's day? "Say not thou, 'What is the cause that the former days were better than these?' For thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this."
Why should Latin be considered an indispensable part of English language education? A fixation with Latin was responsible for the stupid "split infinitive" nonsense, after all. Learning another language can help broaden appreciation for your own, but if teaching a conversationally dead language is that important, why not Sanskrit? Like Latin, it's still a national official language, but in a country with a population just a little bit bigger than the Vatican.
Led Zeppelin Use 'Gliiters' in Stairway to heaven. My year 9 English teacher highlighted 'Glisters' while studying the Merchant of Venice.
Why should Latin be considered an indispensable part of English language education?
I probably mis-spoke myself a bit there... I was primarily thinking of what the required subjects were in Shakespeare's day that might have given a well-educated 10-year-old then certain advantages over "fully educated" modern adults in certain areas.
A fixation with Latin was responsible for the stupid "split infinitive" nonsense, after all.
I believe "A fixation with
something was responsible for the stupid "
something else" nonsense" in a great many cases, ... perhaps we should give up on schooling altogether. (joking)
There seems to be an underlying assumption going on here that colloquial language usage must adhere to rules of logic. This is just nonsense.
RE: potis vs POTUS - I was simply trying to be funny. I don't think it deserved an insult to my intelligence. Thanks for making my time on this bulletin board unpleasant.
>unpleasant
someone's got to do it.
-ron o.
I enjoyed your humor, Karen.
Welcome to the forums. Keep posting.
RE: potis vs POTUS - I was simply trying to be funny. I don't think it deserved an insult to my intelligence. Thanks for making my time on this bulletin board unpleasant.
I laughed, and wasn't really sure what everyone else was going on about!
but that's the way of it around here, sometimes!
:¬ )
Thanks for making my time on this bulletin board unpleasant.
Keep smiling Karen S. I assume it's their job to welcome you this way . Don' t know if there's any gold involved. My guess, it's is just charity.
Your reply was quite to the point. :~)
I sent her a PM; hope she comes back.
So I don't get it. What did we do to insult her intelligence?
perhaps not her intelligence, per se, but I certainly felt *her education was alluded to in the three posts right after hers.
Karen, you've got to be a little bit thick-skinned if you are going to participate on these AWAD forums. I'm late into this dicussion; but I don't see this as an example of an insult. I see it as a part of the give-and-=take of a typical forum exchange. However, to come to your aid, I disagree with the precisionists concerning the meaning of POTIS. Capability in my neck of the woods implies the POWER to use that ability. [a parallel might be seen in the meaning of the Greek EXOUSIA -- see John 1:12] IMO, your point is well-taken. It is interesting that POTIS is so close to POTUS.
Fal: I don't think she was referring to you. She replied to Myr.
Here is what I emailed to her:
I think you misread to whom Myridon was referring, because he was actually commenting, in the first part, on BrynJones's post, who used the "some", "not all" etc. It was not directed at you.
The second part, referring to the meaning of "potus", was directed at you, and he did get that you were joking, because he joked back with a reference to GWB's infamous drinking.
Maybe I got it wrong, but that's how I see/saw it. Feel free to rip it up.... I can take it... ;0)
Noticing, of course, that she has not responded to any comment.
We need not be arrogant, none of us.
It certainly is not the first time someone potentionally interesting gets rebuffed at the first posts. My American nephew got such a negative welcome here, that he soon dropped his efforts. A pity. It was chance missed to share something with a distant (in distance) relative.
It certainly is a pity: a person may give some very enlightening
insight, but won't come back because of the arrogant comment
someone made to drive them away. There are other sites similar
to this one, and I hope they find better treatment there, and
enjoy their stay. This is not the private site of any of us, and
we need not rebuff anyone. There are lots of dead threads with
persons who contributed and who are no longer contributing.
And this could be a major reason why.
well, people move on, different circumstances mean different actions, and life goes on. some of us are less active than in years past, because our lives have changed.
It does. So welcome to all newcomers . (A good hippopotamus skin recommended.)
Yes, a good hippotamus skin is a must. And people move on.
But I stick to my original concept: we do not have the right
to be arrogant and drive others away. HOW WE SAY THINGS,
Matters as much as WHAT WE SAY.
On another site, the word for the day is PERNICIOUS
and the definition from Wiki is "causing much harm in a subtle way." Let's not let that happen.
I think my skin has been breached. Evidentally I'm pernicious, arrogant, crude, negative and insulting. Perhaps my wounds will heal someday. Goodbye all.
I think my skin has been breached. Evidentally I'm pernicious, arrogant, crude, negative and insulting. Perhaps my wounds will heal someday. Goodbye all.
who said that about you? and where?
you really have to read between the lines in this thread.
-joe (or note who's replying to whom) friday
ah, sorry, got it.
I'm pretty naïve when it comes to all this insulting stuff....
Sometimes folks don't pay attention to to whom they are replying. They just click "reply" on the bottommost box.
-two [waving the caution flag] sleepy
Sometimes folks don't pay attention to to whom they are replying. They just click "reply" on the bottommost box.
-two [waving the caution flag] sleepy
heh
that would often be me...
Good gracious--most of this thread seems to me like it's one misunderstanding after another. Myr, I've never known you to be any of those things you said you evidently were--ever. As to your first post in this thread, I took it that you were making a comment on education in general, not about Karen's in particular--but evidently she took it as a personal reference. Then people who don't know tsuwm may have taken his "someone's got to do it" as being serious...and so on down the line.
Um...maybe we can all take a deep breath, and remember that tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language are very difficult to assess on a computer screen. If I may make a recommendation, I think that if we feel upset by someone's post, it's a good idea to check with them to see if they really meant what you thought they did. I for one do quite well at making a fool of myself in other ways, without responding to somebody's insult they never meant!
BTW, where is the Tasmanian Pook gone? Last seen in the AWAD-mail issue 346 of Febr. 15. Kidnapped by Anu?
Perhaps out enjoying the last 6-8 weeks of nice summer weather?
Kia ora!
why not Sanskrit?
1+
vidyA dadAti vinayam vinayAtyAti pAtratAm
pAtratvAddhanamApnoti dhanAddharmam tataH sukham
(Hitopadesha)