Can you please point out my mistakes in the following paragraph?
“Books are a strange blessing. When the clouds of sorrow and anxiety darkens our lives, they console us with sweet words like a true friend. When our friends and relatives turn away from us because of the adversity, they do not leave us. They encourage us. They give us a lesson to overcome our problems through courage and perseverance. This is man’s hundred years gist of wisdom and his most valuable heritage. This is true that all books are not good. Some books are more poisonous than snakes and more dangerous than scorpions. It is necessary to avoid them. We should use wisdom and take caution in selection of books.”
What does this have to do with books?
It looks like you are talking on two different subjects: books and friends. I cannot see how they go together. (I do not agree with this sentiment but I will not argue the content, just the wording.)
“All books are not good.” does not equal “Not all books are good.” I means “All books are bad.” Is this what you wanted to say?
I think this is what you are trying to say, Untaught. I’ve had to remove some words which didn’t add to the sentence, but I’ve made no changes to the style or content, and have no intention of commenting on either of those points.
Books are a strange blessing. When the clouds of sorrow and anxiety darken our lives, they console us with sweet words like a true friend. If our friends and relatives turn away from us because of adversity, books do not leave us. They encourage us. They teach us to overcome our problems through courage and perseverance. They hold thousands of years’ worth of man’s wisdom and heritage. However, not all books are good. Some books are more poisonous than snakes and more dangerous than scorpions. It is necessary to avoid them. We should use wisdom and take care (or ‘exercise caution’) in our selection of books."
Books are a strange blessing. When the clouds of sorrow and anxiety darken our lives, they console us with sweet and soothing words like a true friend. Even when our friends desert us, books do not leave us. They encourage and teach us how to overcome our problems with confidence and perseverance.
It is true that all books are not good. Some books are more poisonous than snakes and more dangerous than scorpions. We should be wise in selecting books. (Sorry, I had to prune it much for cogency)
How do you then distinguish between ‘No books are good’ and ‘All books are not good/All books are bad’? When we say ‘all books are not good’, we mean some books are bad, too. That would lead us to take it as ‘All are not good books’.
Let’s be clear about the following. What does each one exactly mean?
Languages do not work like card games, one cannot shuffle words in a sentence like cards in a deck and expect to retain the meaning, or any meaning.
Number 1 and number 3 mean exactly the same: “All books are bad.”
Number 2 means that there are good books and bad books. Some of the books are good and some are not good.
Number 4, in my opinion needs a subject after “all.” All of what are not good books?
Something was supposed to be stated in a previous sentence or sentences.
"I saw the reading list he has compiled. All (of the books on his list) are not good books.
Yes, it can be said. In fact, it is a well known proverb and it is a grammatically correct one. You can rephrase it “Not everything that glitters is gold,” it will retain the meaning but not the proverb wording.
Why do you think this proverb might be wrong?
As I’ve just indicated, the original #1 is ambiguous, therefore this saying is also ambiguous as a standalone sentence. The difference is that this is a well known saying and as the original context made the meaning clear, that is now still the meaning usually attributed to the phrase.
By the way, ‘glitters’ is a modern version. The Shakespearian version, as written on the note in Portia’s box, was:
“All that glisters is not gold.”
Yes, I agree. Thanks.
BTW, what, apart from the proverbial connotation in 1 and my interpretation in parentheses, would you deduce from the following? Or, how can they be better explained?
All that glitters is not gold. (Not the whole that glitters is gold)
All that glitter are not gold. (Not everything that glitters is gold)
This statement made my ears prick. Sorry, but to me it sounds like, 0 °C below zero.
If you follow the definition of ‘all’ as ”every one (of), or the complete amount or number (of), or the whole (of)”, then how could you read say, “all women are not smart” otherwise than stated? IMHO, English is reach enough in means of delivering the intended meaning. To avoid ‘doublespeak’, you may have constructed the sentence in a proper way like, “Some\many books are not good”.
My interpretation would be that the first is the general statement, the second is more specific to a set of items.
All that glitters is not gold - not everything that glitters is gold (some might be gold). / Everything which glitters is not gold (none are gold).
although it’s an ambiguous statement in itself, obviously the second is untrue, but it is not the grammar which tells us this. Just our knowledge and common sense. Context is the dictating factor.
All that glitter are not gold - not all the glittery things which we are speaking about are gold (some might be gold). / Every one of the glittery things which we are speaking about are not gold (none are gold).
unlike the first, this remains ambiguous unless the context makes it clear.
I’m not surprised it sounds odd, because I would not expect anyone to actually use that phrasing, but nevertheless phrased in the way it is written (for discussion purposes) then it can have the two meanings.
a) All books are not good - though some are
b) All books are not good = they are all “bad”.
I completely agree that the usual phrases would be
a) Not all books are good.
b) Books are not good.
and see no reason for anyone to actually use an ambiguous statement instead.
Perhaps my last try: “All that glitters is not gold” (= not everything that looks precious), is a restrictive characteristic.
It doesn’t correspond with “All books are not good “. ‘All books’ –the whole amount\quantity in question (all of them); ‘not good’ –a reference to their quality (shabby, badly-written, violating ethic norms etc).
Where do you spot the hint making you conclude some books defy the description? In such a short sentence, out of context?.. “All the released are not guilty” = some of them should be brought back in jail?..
Seems like I need some Doctor in Philosophy\Psychoanalyst to explain me why ‘dead’ could mean ‘partly alive’ or ‘hot’ meaning ‘partly defrosted’.
However to be on the logical side, let me take your sentence thus: All those released are not (really) innocent. Why can’t this also mean that there are some (or at least one) guilty among those released?
Yes, it is an ambiguous statement which can convey only the contextual meaning. For a standalone sentence to carry the same idea, the use of ‘Not all those released are (really) innocent’ will be better.