Support NeoGAF

[Acorn]

Here's a Dutch one:

"...en dat is het hele eieren eten"

The literal translation is "...and that is how the eggs are eaten", which basically has the same meaning as "...and that's the way the cookie crumbles".

As if the English version didn't already sound stupid enough.

I snort my eggs.

 

[AnathemicOne]

But the idiom is to have the cake after you eat it, meaning the cake is gone but somehow you still have it.

Have you eaten an entire cake in one sitting?

 

[Baconsaurus Rex]

Have you eaten an entire cake in one sitting?

Too many times.

 

[L Thammy]

Have you eaten an entire cake in one sitting?

Ever heard of a cupcake?

 

[Escape Goat]

We ate the cake, so we don't have it anymore.

🎂🎂🎂

 

[TeamLeftMatch]

Have you eaten an entire cake in one sitting?

....yes. And I'm not proud of it. I had the cake and ate it too, but now I want the cake and it's gone.

 

[VegiHam]

CRUCIO

...did you edit this from Avada Kadavera for a more technically accurate reference?

 

[AnathemicOne]

Ever heard of a cupcake?

The idiom would have to be "eating your cupcake and having it too." Which still doesn't make sense.

You're ignoring the too. It isn't:
Step one) have cake,
Step two) eat cake,
output) cake gone.

It's:
Step one) eat cake,
output) still got cake though fuck you magic cake.

You gotta chose either eating cake or having the cake for some other time.

Yeah that makes more sense, except "too" doesn't imply absence of another, it just means an addition. So yes, having the cake and eating it can be done at the same time. Because it has to be done at the same time in order to eat it. Even if you stole the cake you still have it.

 

[SpaceWolf]

Have you eaten an entire cake in one sitting?

One man has.

 

[PreyingShark]

Have you eaten an entire cake in one sitting?

Pretty sure this is mainly an American idiom, and considering the size of our waistlines I would say that that is probably a lot more common than it should be here.

 

[Stinkles]

Many a mickle mak’s a muckle.

Scottish - lots of small things adds up to a big thing.

Well dur.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

But we originally had it in order to eat the cake.

and because you ate it it is gone and you so not have a cake. you only can have one of the situations.

how are you not getting this. please tell me you understand its so easy.

 

[VegiHam]

Yeah that makes more sense, except "too" doesn't imply absence of another, it just means an addition. So yes, having the cake and eating it can be done at the same time. Because it has to be done at the same time in order to eat it. Even if you stole the cake you still have it.

I agree it's a confusing idiom. I never used to understand it either. But I think you're way overthinking it man. Just imagine it being said be a ye olde timese farmer and it's easier to get I think.

 

[AnathemicOne]

and because you ate it it is gone and you so not have a cake. you only can have one of the situations.

how are you not getting this. please tell me you understand its so easy.

But you had to have it in the first place to eat the cake! You can not not have the cake and eat it. You have to have the cake to eat it.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The cake expression might make more sense if it were switched, e.g. "you can't eat your cake and still have it". But in reverse it's just dumb, I'm with OP on this.

 

[Acorn]

Have you eaten an entire cake in one sitting?

I bought and ate birthday cake in one day. It wasn't my birthday.

Not my greatest moment but it was a damn good cake.

 

[TeamLeftMatch]

The idiom would have to be "eating your cupcake and having it too." Which still doesn't make sense.



Yeah that makes more sense, except "too" doesn't imply absence of another, it just means an addition. So yes, having the cake and eating it can be done at the same time. Because it has to be done at the same time in order to eat it. Even if you stole the cake you still have it.

Ok I think you need a visual aid.

Here is a person with a cake, noting that they have a cake.

Here is a person eating the cake. They have in fact ate the cake.

Here is an empty cake, the cake has been eaten and now is gone. Let's assume the person wants more cake but hasn't. That person has the cake and eats it too. The idiom is referring to the person finishing the cake and somehow still having it despite the fact that the cake is gone.

 

[KarmaCow]

But you had to have it in the first place to eat the cake! You can not not have the cake and eat it. You have to have the cake to eat it.

The act of eating the cake ruins the cake as a whole. It's that simple.

Next time you're at a birthday party, wedding, or some other event with a specialized cake for someone, try eating the cake before it's time and see how that goes.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

You can't have your cupcake and keep it.

 

[Media]

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

This one is mine.

As a sufferer of Sjogrens Syndrome and RA, what doesn't kill me makes me sick and weak and right now I kinda wish it would kill me.

 

[AntChum]

After eating the cake, it resides in your digestive tract, so technically you do still have the cake. And as we all know, to be technically correct is the best kind of correct.

 

[VegiHam]

You can't have your cupcake and keep it.

This is getting kinda zen. I guess cupcakes spoil eventually.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Ok I think you need a visual aid.


Here is a person with a cake, noting that they have a cake.


Here is a person eating the cake. They have in fact ate the cake.


Here is an empty cake, the cake has been eaten and now is gone. Let's assume the person wants more cake but hasn't. That person has the cake and eats it too. The idiom is referring to the person finishing the cake and somehow still having it despite the fact that the cake is gone.

I laughed, thanks. But no this proves my point. In order to eat the cake you had to have had it. The idiom is "having your cake and eating it too." Having the cake and eating it at the same time is not a fallacy, in fact its required to eat the cake in the first place. If you don't have cake, you can't eat it.

 

[TeamLeftMatch]

You can't have your cupcake and keep it.

Goddammit I have a 9am class and now I'm thinking​ about having a cupcake...and eating it too.

 

[Escape Goat]

After eating the cake, it resides in your digestive tract, so technically you do still have the cake. And as we all know, to be technically correct is the best kind of correct.

You don’t buy cake, you only rent it amirite

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Op is a few bricks short of a deck

 

[VegiHam]

I laughed, thanks. But no this proves my point. In order to eat the cake you had to have had it. The idiom is "having your cake and eating it too." Having the cake and eating it at the same time is not a fallacy, in fact its required to eat the cake in the first place. If you don't have cake, you can't eat it.

Swap have for 'keep' or 'save'. That's the form of have the, uh, idiom writers intended I guess.

 

[Earthbound64]

"What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."

No.
F*** you.

 

[SpaceWolf]

I'm convinced our dear OP is trolling at this point.

 

[elrechazado]

I laughed, thanks. But no this proves my point. In order to eat the cake you had to have had it. The idiom is "having your cake and eating it too." Having the cake and eating it at the same time is not a fallacy, in fact its required to eat the cake in the first place. If you don't have cake, you can't eat it.

And he continues to fail to read lol.

 

[AnathemicOne]

I'm convinced our dear OP is trolling at this point.

I've yet to see a sound argument in that the idiom of "having your cake and eating it too" is somehow an example of a fallacy. Again, as far as I'm aware, you have to have cake in the first place (even if you stole it) in order to eat it. This thread is about "stupid idioms" and I'm calling this one stupid.

 

[TeamLeftMatch]

I laughed, thanks. But no this proves my point. In order to eat the cake you had to have had it. The idiom is "having your cake and eating it too." Having the cake and eating it at the same time is not a fallacy, in fact its required to eat the cake in the first place. If you don't have cake, you can't eat it.

I can have some one else's cake though, you dont have to have it.

But the idea is having the cake after you eat it. You can't have the cake, you ate it.

I'm convinced our dear OP is trolling at this point.

At this point, I'm convinced OP wants to buy cake but is using the idiom as a way to justify buying and eating it.

 

[Trouble]

You're a stupid idiom.

 

[Plum]

But you had to have it in the first place to eat the cake! You can not not have the cake and eat it. You have to have the cake to eat it.

But once you've eaten it, you don't have the cake. So you can't have the cake and eat it as well, you can only have the cake then eat it.

 

[elrechazado]

I've yet to see a sound argument in that the idiom of "having your cake and eating it too" is somehow an example of a fallacy. Again, as far as I'm aware, you have to have cake in the first place (even if you stole it) in order to eat it. This thread is about "stupid idioms" and I'm calling this one stupid.

But you're not reading, using logic, or understanding anything.

You can't still have a cake if you've eaten it. That's it. Reeeeeeaaaaaad. Good god

 

[Starwolf_UK]

Regarding cake eating and cake having. Try seeing if some non-English equivalents make more sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it#Other_languages

Though the Korean one "You can't catch two rabbits (at the same time)" is quite funny when linked with Confucius saying of "he who chases two rabbits gets neither", in a sort of "oh yeah. I'll show you" kind of way.

Next time you're at a birthday party, wedding, or some other event with a specialized cake for someone, try eating the cake before it's time and see how that goes.

 

[AnathemicOne]

I can have some one else's cake though, you dont have to have it.

But the idea is having the cake after you eat it. You can't have the cake, you ate it.




At this point, I'm convinced OP wants to buy cake but is using the idiom as a way to justify buying and eating it.

Sure, but once it enters your hands and/or your mouth, you are having the cake. This is why "somebody having cake" translates easily into "someone eating cake". Or "someone having chicken" equates to "someone eating chicken." The idiom at first glance doesn't imply future tense, even with the "too" as "too" is the equivalent of an addition not a future tense.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

"To try and do something"

When someone says "I'm going to try and find a solution", that's not actually two actions even though that's two verbs ("try" and "find").

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

You won't believe which 500 year old idiom has just been disproven

 

[turtle553]

The cake expression might make more sense if it were switched, e.g. "you can't eat your cake and still have it". But in reverse it's just dumb, I'm with OP on this.

It's gone back and forth over the years:

History[edit]
The order of the clauses in the saying has been the subject of some debate, and was even used in forensic linguistics (contributing to the identification and arrest of the so-called Unabomber[7]).

An early recording of the phrase is in a letter on 14 March 1538 from Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, to Thomas Cromwell, as "a man can not have his cake and eat his cake".[8]

The phrase occurs with the clauses reversed in John Heywood's "A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue" from 1546, as "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?".[9] In John Davies' "Scourge of Folly" of 1611, the same order is used, as "A man cannot eat his cake and haue it stil."[10] In Jonathan Swift's 1738 farce "Polite Conversation", the character Lady Answerall says "she cannot eat her cake and have her cake."[11]

The order was reversed again in a posthumous adaptation of "Polite Conversation" in 1749, "Tittle Tattle; or, Taste A-la-Mode", as "And she cannot have her Cake and eat her Cake."[12][13][14] From 1812 (R. C. Knopf's "Document Transcriptions of War of 1812" (1959) VI. 204) is a modern-sounding recording of "We cannot have our cake and eat it too."[15]

According to the Google Ngram Viewer, the eat-first order was more common until about 1935, since which time the have-first order has become much more popular.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

Also used to help catch the Unabomber

 

[Earthbound64]

"To try and do something"

When someone says "I'm going to try and find a solution", that's not actually two actions even though that's two verbs ("try" and "find").

That's because the idiom is "To try to do something."
"To try and do something" is a Tolkienism.

 

[retroman]

Op is a few bricks short of a deck

He should make like a tree and get out of here

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I feel like I've seen this thread three times on GAF, each time with a different OP, completely refusing to read the explanations because it gets in the way of their point.

 

[retroman]

You won't believe which 500 year old idiom has just been disproven

The cake is a lie!












Please kill me for typing that

 

[MDSVeritas]

I honestly did not expect this to be a thing I would do today, but I will assist with trying to argue the point of a cake idiom.

The idiom, as seems to be generally understood by everyone here, is simply referring to being unable to hold two mutually exclusive states at once.

Aside some minor wording quibbles I think it does it pretty well as the two states:

"I have a cake before me."

and

"I have eaten this cake and no longer have it before me"

Cannot exist at one time. Sure, we can get into unnecessarily specific questions about the idiom, such as technically having a part of the cake while you eat it, but honestly what's the point? The saying is simply using two naturally exclusive states: pre- and post-eating, and saying that you cannot have those two states exist at the same time.

 

[Plum]

With all this over-thinking this is turning into making a mountain out of a molehill: the thread.

 

[Spiritual_Chaos]

it doesn't get eddie vedder than this

 

[wetflame]

You can't have your money and spend it on cake.

 

[Couleurs]

it doesn't get eddie vedder than this

It’s all water under the fridge

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

treat others like you want to be treated.


There are lots of ways that different people don't want to be treated like others. However, we all know the spirit and intention of what the phrase refers to. It's just such a popular saying that could use a refinement.