Support NeoGAF

[God Dayumm]

How so, do these example comparisons not make sense to you?

"I will eat the cake" = "I will have the cake"
"I had the cake" = "I ate the cake"
"I am having cake" = "I am eating cake"

The way I'm viewing "have your cake and eat it to" is "eat your cake and eat it too", its redundant.

In this idiom "Have" means to keep in possession, not to consume it

 

[Earthbound64]

But we are talking in the context of food not tools. Replace cake with any type of food/drink and the meaning will remain the same i.e. consumption.

"I have 1000 types of beer."

In this idiom "Have" means to keep in possession, not to consume it

Exactly

 

[UCBooties]

But we are talking in the context of food not tools. Replace cake with any type of food/drink and the meaning will remain the same i.e. consumption.

No, the possession meaning is still valid and in order to determine which meaning is intended you must look at the context of the whole sentence.

 

[yepyepyep]

But it still doesn't make sense. Making your bed doesn't mean you have to immediately sleep in it.

Accepting the consequences of making your bed isn't "I now have to sleep in it".

I have never once heard it in any other example that wouldn't work better reversed instead of the usual way people use it.


How is making your bed screwing up? It's fixing the mess you made, how the saying is used by everyone I have ever seen use it.

It's implying you've made your bed in shit fashion and now have to sleep on it, not that you have made your bed properly. Yes, of course you could remake your bed before you sleep but it is kind of missing the point that is supposed to be a figurative not literal saying.

 

[Plum]

But we are talking in the context of food not tools. Replace cake with any type of food/drink and the meaning will remain the same i.e. consumption.

"Hey, bro, you got any beers?"

"Yeah, I have some Budweiser."

"Aww man, why'd you drink it all before I got here?!"

"What? I literally have some beer, it's in my fridge right now."

"Yeah but we're talking in the context of food."

 

[UncleSporky]

But I can, if I'm eating the cake, then I'm having the cake, at the same time.

No you're not. If you're eating the cake, you are no longer possessing the cake you began with.

Look if you own a cake shop, and someone orders a cake from you, and you make a cake for them, and you eat some of it and then try to give it to them, they're going to be understandably upset. They ordered an intact cake from you, not one with a few bites out of it. You're arguing that you can possess the cake (and give it to them as ordered) while also being able to eat it. After you start eating it, it's not a "cake," in the sense of being a whole cake.

Also as a side note this is how the tab looks in my Chrome:

 

[poppabk]

'A bad workman blames his tools'
Well so would a good workman with crappy or inappropriate tools.

 

[AnathemicOne]

"I have 1000 types of beer."





Exactly

But now you have shifted context outside the realm of consumption, the idiom is still within that context.

No, the possession meaning is still valid and in order to determine which meaning is intended you must look at the context of the whole sentence.

The idiom is "You can't have cake and eat it too" its still referring to consumption, not possession. I can eat cake while having it, because I'm doing both at the same time.

"Hey, bro, you got any beers?"

"Yeah, I have some Budweiser."

"Aww man, why'd you drink it all before I got here?!"

"What? I literally have some beer, it's in my fridge right now."

"Yeah but we're talking in the context of food."

The first sentence set up the context of that conversation. "Got" is not equivalent of "eat".

 

[UCBooties]

But now you have shifted context outside the realm of consumption, the idiom is still within that context.



The idiom is "You can't have cake and eat it too" its still referring to consumption, not possession. I can eat cake while having it, because I'm doing both at the same time.

You are the one insisting on an incorrect usage. You simply refuse to accept that "to have" has wider contextual meaning. This can't be explained any more simply, you're just stuffing your fingers in your ears at this point.

 

[Ristifer]

What in the fuck did I just read in this thread?

 

[Manu]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

 

[Plum]

But now you have shifted context outside the realm of consumption, the idiom is still within that context.

The idiom is "You can't have cake and eat it too" its still referring to consumption, not possession. I can eat cake while having it, because I'm doing both at the same time.

"Hey, bro, do you have your cake? I'd like a slice."

"Awww man, why are you implying that I ate it all? Who do you think I am?"

The first sentence set up the context of that conversation. "Got" is not equivalent of "eat".

Fixed:

"Hey, bro, you have any beers?"

"Yeah, I have some Budweiser."

"Aww man, why'd you drink it all before I got here?!"

"What? I literally have some beer, it's in my fridge right now."

"Yeah but we're talking in the context of food."

 

[evilromero]

But then why is it used in arguments? If you have something you're going to logically use it. Yet people keep using the term likes it's a bad thing. If I have food in my possession I'm gonna eat it, what's the purpose of the idiom?

I knew you were gonna be trouble calling out "stupid idioms" followed by admitting you don't know what the idiom actually means. Hoping you see the irony here but my guess is no.

 

[UtterlyPerplexed]

I was actually ignoring the cake thing and decided to focus on the actual thread topic at hand, but in light of how this thread has turned out, I had to go back and read it all. I am so glad I did.

 

[Earthbound64]

But now you have shifted context outside the realm of consumption, the idiom is still within that context.

I give up guys, you can have him.

 

[LordRaptor]

OP is Karl Pilkington

 

[AnathemicOne]

"Hey, bro, do you have your cake? I'd like a slice."

"Awww man, why are you implying that I ate it all? Who do you think I am?"



Fixed:

That's sounds fine? If someone asked me if I had cake I'd assume they're asking me if I ate it.

 

[God Dayumm]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

LOL have patience. Lots of people have trouble understanding this sort of linguistic gimmicks. I don't think he is trolling or anything

 

[Travo]

I was actually ignoring the cake thing and decided to focus on the actual thread topic at hand, but in light of how this thread has turned out, I had to go back and read it all. I am so glad I did.

I’m not.

 

[AuthenticM]

"same difference"

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE

 

[Plum]

That's sounds fine? If someone asked me if I had cake I'd assume they're asking me if I ate it.

HAD =/= HAVE

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Here's one I really hate:

"The exception [that] proves the rule"

AN EXCEPTION DOESN'T PROVE A RULE, IT EFFECTIVELY DISPROVES IT

SHUT UP

 

[Ristifer]

That's sounds fine? If someone asked me if I had cake I'd assume they're asking me if I ate it.

But the first question is in the present tense. They didn't ask whether you had cake. They're asking if you have your cake. You would never see someone eat a cake and then ask, "Hey man, do you have your cake?"

 

[UCBooties]

LOL have patience. Lots of people have trouble understanding this sort of linguistic gimmicks. I don't think he is trolling or anything

There is a limit of tolerance for people who are repeatedly corrected and refuse to accept that they have made a mistake. OP is actively trying not to learn at this point.

 

[tonysidaway]

The hideous truth about cake. (YouTube)

 

[AnathemicOne]

HAD =/= HAVE

But the first question is in the present tense. They didn't ask whether you had cake. They're asking if you have your cake. You would never see someone eat a cake and then ask, "Hey man, do you have cake?"

I'm going to use the example provided:

"Hey, bro, do you have your cake? I'd like a slice."

"Awww man, why are you implying that I ate it all? Who do you think I am?"

Is me reading

"Hey, bro, do you eat your cake? I'd like a slice."

"Awww man, why are you implying that I ate it all? Who do you think I am?"

wrong?

 

[Earthbound64]

LOL have patience. Lots of people have trouble understanding this sort of linguistic gimmicks. I don't think he is trolling or anything

That's not what this is, though.
This is someone refusing to understand how words and definitions work.

 

[UCBooties]

I'm going to use the example provided:

"Hey, bro, do you have your cake? I'd like a slice."

"Awww man, why are you implying that I ate it all? Who do you think I am?"

Is me reading

"Hey, bro, do you eat your cake? I'd like a slice."

"Awww man, why are you implying that I ate it all? Who do you think I am?"

wrong?

Yes, that is wrong. The first question is read as "Hey bro, do you possess your cake? I'd like a slice."

 

[LordRaptor]

I

Is me reading

wrong?

yes.

Why do you keep insisting 'have' is a synonym for 'eat'?

"You can't have your money and spend it" because if you spend it you no longer have it.
At no point am I suggesting you eat money.

 

[AnathemicOne]

yes.

Why do you keep insisting 'have' is a synonym for 'eat'?

"You can't have your money and spend it" because if you spend it you no longer have it.
At no point am I suggesting you eat money.

Because we talking about the context of food consumption. Food due to the word "cake" and consumption due to the word "eat." I fail to see how "Do you eat your cake" is an example of a failed sentence. It looks fine to me? It's asking if I eat my cake.

 

[UCBooties]

Because we talking about the context of food consumption. Food due to the word "cake" and consumption due to the word "eat."

Once again, the fact that the subject of a sentence is food does not automatically mean that the meaning of "have" is "eat." It can still imply possession, and in the case of the offending idiom, that is exactly how it is used.

 

[elrechazado]

Here's one I really hate:

"The exception [that] proves the rule"

AN EXCEPTION DOESN'T PROVE A RULE, IT EFFECTIVELY DISPROVES IT

SHUT UP

Yet another one where the definition you're referring to isn't the only use of the word. It makes perfect sense using a perfectly acceptable use of the word prove:

The Old English interpretation[edit]
The phrase is also sometimes, though with less reliability, claimed to mean "the exception tests the rule," since the original meaning of "to prove" in Old English (originating from the Latin word probat, compare probe) was closer to "to test." This original use of "to prove" meaning "to test" can also be seen in the phrase "proof spirit" — which was liquor which had been tested and shown to be of appropriate quality. This usage still exists — a site designated for testing equipment or weaponry may be called a "proving ground" (most notably in the US Military). A firearm cartridge, or round, designed to produce pressures higher than what a firearm is rated for is called a "proof round" Firearms are required to be able to fire a "proof round" without failure to ensure they are safe to use with standard pressure rounds. A further example, used both metaphorically and literally, is the term bulletproof.
In some cases, either of these definitions of "prove" create a working sentence, which somewhat explains the change in definition. For example I can say that porn found on a priest's hard drive "proves" that he is a paedophile, and it works for either definition; it either (a) provides hard evidence of paedophilia, thus proving the accusation to be true in the modern sense of the word, or (b) provides a legitimate test of whether or not the priest is a paedophile — if the subjects of the porn are under age, he is defined as a paedophile. However, the aphorism "the exception that proves the rule" was not treated properly by the shift in definition, and now it looks like a way for idiots to justify their idiocy.
Hence the phrase can be used correctly in the context of the scientific method, when testing a hypothesis by examining possible exceptions to it and whether they invalidate the hypothesis. So if I hypothesise that "all swans are white" (under the condition that at least one swan exists), the discovery of the black swan (Cygnus atratus) "proves" (meaning "tests") my rule. In this case, the rule is falsified.

 

[Johnohno]

"Hey, bro, do you eat your cake? I'd like a slice

This makes no grammatical sense though.

It’s either “did you eat your cake?” Or “do you eat your cake?” with no asking for a slice after, as that’s a simple “yes, I eat cake, what do you do with it?” answer.

 

[Plum]

wrong?

Very much so. Have doesn't automatically mean 'eat' when talking about food. Substitute drink into the first example:

"Hey, bro, you drink any beers?"

"Yeah, I drink some Budweiser."

"Aww man, why'd you drink it all before I got here?!"

"What? I literally drink some beer, it's in my fridge right now."

"Yeah but we're talking in the context of food."

Does that make any sense to you? At all?

 

[AnathemicOne]

Once again, the fact that the subject of a sentence is food does not automatically mean that the meaning of "have" is "eat." It can still imply possession, and in the case of the offending idiom, that is exactly how it is used.

But that's not how its read at first glance. Since "have" is ambiguous in different meanings it is thus ambiguous in context. Therefore you locate the word "eat" and the context is established.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too" = "You can't eat your cake and eat it too." It's redundant.

 

[UCBooties]

Yet another one where the definition you're referring to isn't the only use of the word. It makes perfect sense using a perfectly acceptable use of the word prove:

The Old English interpretation[edit]
The phrase is also sometimes, though with less reliability, claimed to mean "the exception tests the rule," since the original meaning of "to prove" in Old English (originating from the Latin word probat, compare probe) was closer to "to test." This original use of "to prove" meaning "to test" can also be seen in the phrase "proof spirit" — which was liquor which had been tested and shown to be of appropriate quality. This usage still exists — a site designated for testing equipment or weaponry may be called a "proving ground" (most notably in the US Military). A firearm cartridge, or round, designed to produce pressures higher than what a firearm is rated for is called a "proof round" Firearms are required to be able to fire a "proof round" without failure to ensure they are safe to use with standard pressure rounds. A further example, used both metaphorically and literally, is the term bulletproof.
In some cases, either of these definitions of "prove" create a working sentence, which somewhat explains the change in definition. For example I can say that porn found on a priest's hard drive "proves" that he is a paedophile, and it works for either definition; it either (a) provides hard evidence of paedophilia, thus proving the accusation to be true in the modern sense of the word, or (b) provides a legitimate test of whether or not the priest is a paedophile — if the subjects of the porn are under age, he is defined as a paedophile. However, the aphorism "the exception that proves the rule" was not treated properly by the shift in definition, and now it looks like a way for idiots to justify their idiocy.
Hence the phrase can be used correctly in the context of the scientific method, when testing a hypothesis by examining possible exceptions to it and whether they invalidate the hypothesis. So if I hypothesise that "all swans are white" (under the condition that at least one swan exists), the discovery of the black swan (Cygnus atratus) "proves" (meaning "tests") my rule. In this case, the rule is falsified.

Oh, that's really cool. Thanks for posting that!

 

[UncleSporky]

Here's one I really hate:

"The exception [that] proves the rule"

AN EXCEPTION DOESN'T PROVE A RULE, IT EFFECTIVELY DISPROVES IT

SHUT UP

You've probably heard it used in the wrong context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

"The exception [that] proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning has been interpreted or misinterpreted in various ways. Its true, or at least original, meaning is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule). A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."

 

[Earthbound64]

Because we talking about the context of food consumption. Food due to the word "cake" and consumption due to the word "eat." I fail to see how "Do you eat your cake" is an example of a failed sentence. It looks fine to me? It's asking if I eat my cake.

"Do you have a slice of pizza I can eat?"

 

[UCBooties]

But that's not how its read at first glance. Since "have" is ambiguous in different meanings it is thus amphibious in context. Therefore you locate the word "eat" and the context is established.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too" = "You can't eat your cake and eat it too." It's redundant.

Only if you insist on reading the incorrect meaning for "have."

I'm well past the point of believing that you are asking this in good faith.

 

[Elfstar]

Maybe "you can't eat a cake and still have it" would've been less confusing

 

[UtterlyPerplexed]

There is no reason why the word "have", which is very broad as it is and how it's generally applied, suddenly exclusively and arbitrarily means "to eat/consume" when the topic switches to that of food. The English language has weird rules (and sometimes lack thereof), but this is not amongst one of its sillier moments.

 

[Plum]

But that's not how its read at first glance. Since "have" is ambiguous in different meanings it is thus ambiguous in context. Therefore you locate the word "eat" and the context is established.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too" = "You can't eat your cake and eat it too." It's redundant.

No, you locate the word 'eat'. Literally no-one else in the thread sees 'have' in the idiom as meaning 'eat'. Everyone but you is seeing 'have' as meaning 'have'.

 

[Earthbound64]

No, you locate the word 'eat'. Literally no-one else in the thread sees 'have' in the idiom as meaning 'eat'. Everyone but you is seeing 'have' as meaning 'possess'.

ftfy

 

[elrechazado]

Because we talking about the context of food consumption. Food due to the word "cake" and consumption due to the word "eat." I fail to see how "Do you eat your cake" is an example of a failed sentence. It looks fine to me? It's asking if I eat my cake.

Scene - a restaurant:

Me:. Waiter, do you have the lamb shank tonight?

Waiter: yes sir

Op: omg why did he eat the lamb shank

Me: [strangles op with a napkin]

 

[Prez]

Lots of mental gymnastics going on in here.

 

[frontovik]

The grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[LordRaptor]

Because we talking about the context of food consumption. Food due to the word "cake" and consumption due to the word "eat." I fail to see how "Do you eat your cake" is an example of a failed sentence. It looks fine to me? It's asking if I eat my cake.

The phrase uses "cake" because small children who are not cognitively aware enough to understand the concept of money can understand the difference between having or not having a product they have encountered in their life.

Like cake.

You are frustrating people by refusing to understand concepts that a 4 year old can grasp.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Only if you insist on reading the incorrect meaning for "have."

I'm well past the point of believing that you are asking this in good faith.

What incorrect meaning? Does me saying "I'm eating cake and eating it too" make sense? Yeah it does, but its redundant as I don't need that extra "eating" or "too" for that matter.

 

[Earthbound64]

Scene - a restaurant:

Me:. Waiter, do you have the lamb shank tonight?

Waiter: yes sir

Op: omg why did he eat the lamb shank

Me: [strangles op with a napkin]

Careful with the shanking in here.

 

[Prez]

The grass is always greener on the other side.

Why?