Do you remember the English “content is better than…” which means “real inside content is better than superficial outside appearance”?
If content is better than appearance then material itself, then appearance is better and so one should remember that all good stuff is better if you know our content!
Why can’t I remember the “…” in “content is better than…”.
How can I fill in the missed word?
Why, if not more than you think, might I always go out and buy it?
Why is content better than riches (a Chinese proverb)?
com
The proverb is also seen written as: “Content is better than riches’, the first recorded citation being in 1566 Source:
A Dictionary of American Proverbs. A saying perhaps
from the Bible: “But goodness with contentment is great gain.
“. 1 Timothy 6:6, KJB.’1, Timothy
6, KJB 1 Timothy ; 10:12 cf.
Google Books searches reveal various competing expressions that begin with “content is better than”—including ones that refer to each of the two main senses of content : “contentment” and “substance”. What’s
Content, as contentment?
According to a Bible, the greatest wealth is contentment with a little.
James Moffat, A New Translation of the Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments (1954), contrasts content not with riches but with toil.
Still, one handful of content is better than two hands full of toil then futile effort and that may actually give the writer a hard hard time.
Are the stars and the stars going to be obeyed?
Do we mean
content as substance? Why as a society, also have this completely different expression: Content is
better than form?
The first Google Books match for this last expression appears in Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Common Schools of Pennsylvania (1900) . Google Books has found multiple instances over the next decade, but all of them are quoting the same commentary on the proper way to teach literature. Do you find the OP’s question more relevant than the others to the OP’s request for a saying that distinguishes between substance ( content ) and superficial appearance
(here, form )?
