[Grammar] all that glitters is not gold

[ugur35]

which of the belows would be correct?
all that glitters is not gold of which I am certain
it is never precious.
or
all that glitters is not gold of which I am certain
is never precious.
thanks a lot.

 

[jutfrank]

Re: relative

They're both incorrect and make no sense.

ugur35 -- Tell us more about what you want to say.

 

[GoesStation]

Re: relative

Welcome to the forum though! :hi: We'll try to help you express your thoughts as soon as we can understand them.

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: relative

Which of the ​phrases/sentences [STRIKE]belows[/STRIKE] below [STRIKE]would be[/STRIKE] is correct?

All that glitters is not gold of which I am certain it is never precious.
or
All that glitters is not gold of which I am certain is never precious.

Thanks a lot.

Welcome to the forum. :hi:

Note my changes to the words, capitalisation and layout of your post above. Like the other people who have responded, I don't know what you're trying to say with the second part of your sentences.

"All that glisters is not gold" is a set phrase, first used by William Shakespeare in 1596 in The Merchant of Venice. The modern version, "All that glitters is not gold" is now almost universally used. Most people don't even realise that the original was "glisters".

 

[Rover_KE]

ugur35, please note that I have changed your thread title.

The title you chose has nothing to do with your question.

Extract from the Posting Guidelines:

'Thread titles should include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.'

 

[Tdol]

If something glitters, it may or may not be gold, so neither sentence is factually right- whatever it is could be precious or worthless.

 

[jutfrank]

Technically, this Shakespeare fellow got it wrong. I think he meant Not all that glisters is gold. Different meaning, right?

 

[Tdol]

That Shakespeare fellow didn't pay much attention to detail and small print- he was more of a broad stroke kinda guy.