A popular use of the subject proverb was in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, which was written in 1596. 

Meaning "All that glitters is not gold" is to say that all may not be as it appears to be. Literally, it means that just because something sparkles or glitters, that does not mean it is gold. It could be some other metal or something that sparkles similarly to gold. In real life, it is easier to apply. For example, if someone appears to be your friend as they treat you nicely and act favorably to you, this does not necessarily mean that they are really your friend and hold your best interests at heart.  You can, of course, also apply it to items or products that look or sound valuable, but can be worthless.

  • Don't be deceived by the designers' dresses, shoes and jewellery that Mary wears. The fact is she is on the verge of bankruptcy. All that glisters is not gold.
  • Don't listen to what the investment consultant told you. She claimed the mini-bonds were as safe as government bonds, but she did not tell you that they could become worthless. All that glisters is not gold

Glitters appear to be a plural noun,  why is it not "All those glitters are not gold"?
Answer:     Glitters is not a noun here. It is a verb. All in this situation should be followed by a singular verb as in "All is well". "that glitters" forms a verb clause. If you still cannot figure that out, please try treat it as "All (which glitters) is not gold".

这语句最为人熟识是娄似句子曾在沙士比亚名著威尼斯商人 (1596) 出现过。


  • 你看她穿着名牌服装,皮鞋及珠宝,但不要被他蒙闭,其实她面临破产边缘,人不可以貌相,
  • 请不要听那位投资顾问所说,她声称迷你债券稳如证府债券,但她没有告诉你它们可以变为一文不值,物不可信包装。

This subject arises in relation to the sentence "I will be going to New York and Los Angles" that I wrote in my blog at QQ. A friend asked me why I did not say "I will go...." or "I am going to go.....". I did not seriously think about the grammar of my sentence at the time. As a matter of fact, I used "I will go...." in the blog at 163.com. The reason that I did not write "I am going to go....." is  that it seems repetitious.

"I will be going......" is a form of the future continuous tense ("CFT"), which according to EnglishClub.com is used to express action at a particular moment in the future. It is said that the following rules apply to the use of CFT:

  1. The action will start before that moment but it will not have finished at that moment. 
  2. When we use CFT, our listener usually knows or understands what time we are talking about.

The example given by EnglishClub.com is that if I will start work at 2pm and stop work at 6pm, I may say "I will be working at 4pm". The listener would understand that I am in the middle of working at 4pm, i.e. I start working before 4pm and will continue beyond that time.

Returning to my sentence, I think FCT is appropriate to express my upcoming trip as I will continue to go from New York to Los Angeles. It would be a long and extended trip. Nonetheless,  I did not follow the second rule applicable to CFT as I did not mention as to the relevant time of my trip. In the circumstances, I will revise my sentence to "I will be going to New York and Los Angeles in June". It is to tell you that I would be in the middle of my trip in June. Further you may expect that I would leave before June and would not finish the trip in June.
I am grateful to my friend for raising the question.
My friend John asked me the following question:
There are two sentences here: “I am supposed to clean my room.” “I should clean my room.” I think the two sentences have the same meaning. That means “be supposed to” and “should” have the same grammatical function. But I am not so positive about that, I still doubt there might be some differences between them. I’d like to know whether they are any differences and how to use them. 
My comments are:
Personally, I think the two are not interchangeable, i.e. not the same. The meanings of the two may vary depending on, among other things, the related contexts and the tone of the speaker. "Should" has a stronger tone and refers to something you are obligated to do. As for "supposed to", it mostly refers to something which others think you are obligated to do so but you feel otherwise.
  • "I should clean the room"- My mother told me to clean the room, but I did not do it. I know it is my duty to do it. I feel sorry for not doing so.
  • "I am supposed to clean the room"- My mother told me to clean the room, but I did not do it. It is only according to my mother I should do it, but I don't think it is my duty to do it.

When you run a stop sign and got stopped by the police, which of the followings you think the police would say to you?
  1. "John, you should stop at the stop sign." or
  2. "You are supposed to stop at the stop sign."

My choice would be Sentence 1. A driver is required by law to stop at the stop sing so he should (!!!) stop not only "supposed to" stop. Besides the former sentence makes the speaker sound more authoritative than the latter.