欧美狠狠干黑丝袜人妖视频,综合亚洲日本日日摸夜夜添,亚洲无人区码一二三码区别

What do you think is the real meaning of the often quoted line from Shakespeare1 “All that glisters is not gold”?2 The strict sense would be that glistering proves a substance to be not gold. But the real sense is that glistering does not necessarily3 prove a substance to be gold. In other words, the proverb should, logically speaking4, be “Not all that glisters is gold”.
But Shakespeare wrote in the illogical way, and this illogical construction is not now uncommon. For example, if you hear an Englishman say “All my friends do not know the Han language”, you must not understand him to mean that all his friends are ignorant of 5 Han. He may very well imply that most of his friends can speak and write it very well.
This is indeed illogical. There are Englishmen who do not use this construction and fall foul of6 those who do7, Probably it will pass away in time8, for logic has time on its side9. But it is natural and idiomatic English today, and I think every learner of English should know it.
There are a number of other illogicalities in English that are quite idiomatic. Please read the first sentence of the second paragraph of this article again. Perhaps you will think that “is not now uncommon” is not so good as “is now not uncommon” would be. According to logic, indeed, “not” ought to modify “uncommon” instead of “now”. But according to idiom “is not now uncommon” is more usual.
With the word “only”, illogical and idiomatic constructions are also common. An Englishman may say “I only arrived a few days ago”, when he means that he arrived only a few days ago.
As I have said, logic has time on its side. But how many years the English language will take to become a perfectly logical speech10!

NOTES
1.Shakespeare 指William Shakespeare (1564 —1616)莎士比亞，英國劇作家和詩人
2.“All that glisters is not gold” 一切閃光的東西不都是金子
3.does not necessarily 未必；不一定
4.logically speaking 按照邏輯講
5.ignorant of the Han language 不懂漢語
6.fall foul of … 與……爭吵
7.do=use this construction
8.will pass away in time 將來總須消滅
9.has time on its side 有時間為它支持；日后它必將勝利
10.But how many years the English language will take to become a perfectly logical speech! 但英語要經過多少年才能成為一種完全合于邏輯的語言！

時常被人引用的莎士比亞詩句“All that glisters is not gold”是什么意思？嚴格的意思可能是“閃耀證明一個物質不是金子”?？墒钦鎸嵉囊馑际恰伴W耀未必證明一個物質是金子”。換句話說，按照邏輯，這個諺語應該改成“Not all that glisters is gold”。
可是莎士比亞寫得不合邏輯，而這個不合邏輯的結構現在也普遍存在。舉例來說，假使你聽到一個英國人說“All my friends do not know the Han language”，你一定不能認為他在說他的朋友們都不懂漢語。他很可能在暗示他的大多數朋友講和寫漢語都很好。
這個確實是不合邏輯的。也有英國人不用這個結構而且很不贊成用這個結構。這個結構將來總會消失，因為時間久了邏輯必將勝利?？墒墙裉焖亲匀欢嫌诹曊Z的英語，我認為每個英語學習者都應該知道它。
英語中還有不少別的不合邏輯卻完全合于習語的東西。請再讀一遍本文第二段第一句（“…and this illogical construction is not now uncommon.”）。也許你會認為“is not now uncommon”不及“is now not uncommon”好。依照邏輯，“not”的確該是修飾“uncommon”而不是修飾“now”。但是依照習語，“is not now uncommon”比較普遍。
關于“only”這個詞，不合于邏輯而合于習語的結構也是普遍的。一個英國人可能說：“I only arrived a few days ago”，而他的意思其實是他“arrived only a few days ago”。
正像我剛才說過的，邏輯日后必將勝利?？墒怯⒄Z要經過多少年才能成為一種完全合于邏輯的語言?。?br />

向學習英語者講話14--Logic and Usage

向學習英語者講話14--Logic and Usage

用戶評論