• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Examples of Stupid Idioms

W

whatsinaname

Member
1) OP: I don't get the idiom.

2) Poster A: That word in the idiom can mean 'A' or 'B' but in this case it means 'A', so the idiom makes sense.

3) OP: But I always take that word to mean 'B' so I don't understand.

4) Go To Step 2

I feel dumber for having read through the conversation. Especially considering I got stuck in the exact same loop a couple of months ago.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=240808848&postcount=40

cpp_is_king said:
Right, so if you possess a cake, why would you NOT eat it? But the idiom implies your desires are unreasonable. Eating a cake that you possess is entirely reasonable
Click to expand...
 
P

Plum

Member
235


What do you call this guy when in the context of food?

Eatel
 
KaoteK

KaoteK

Member
"It's cheap at half the price"

Well yeah, obviously. Everything is cheap at half the price. Should be "It's cheap at double the price" which shows the item is a really good deal. Which is the whole point of that stupid idiom.
 
G

Golden_Pigeon

Banned
"In Rome, does as Romans" (sorry for the translation)

It's stupid, Romans were imposing their culture everywhere, and almost always used to justify bigoted views.

Also "Dogs don't make cats" to say that the son of someone can be expected.
 
W

whatsinaname

Member
KaoteK said:
"It's cheap at half the price"

Well yeah, obviously. Everything is cheap at half the price. Should be "It's cheap at double the price" which shows the item is a really good deal. Which is the whole point of that stupid idiom.
Click to expand...

Ooh, this is interesting. Not sure how accurate this origin is but it might explain it.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheap_at_half_the_price

"Cheap at half the price" is the original and correct version of the saying. In Middle English, cheap, or "cheep" also meant goods or property, so the street cry, "Cheap at half the price!", was the Middle Ages' equivalent of today's shop window sign, "All stock 50% off". Chaucer uses this meaning in, "...greet cheep is holde at litel pris...". That is to say, where there is an abundance, "greet cheep" = great supply of goods, the price is low "..holde at litel price" = is valued at a low price. Possibly the earliest reference to supply and demand! The corruption, "Cheap at twice the price" would have appeared through a misunderstanding of the original meaning of "cheep".
Click to expand...
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
darklin0 said:
Nope. You said if it applies to food it always means to eat. You can't just arbitrarily decide what a word means at any given moment.
Click to expand...

That's how English works? It's why I'm having trouble grasping "You can't have and eat your cake too." Because there's no context other than food consumption within that sentence in a vacuum which it is often used in. I get what its supposed to mean, I'm arguing what people think it means doesn't mean what it means.

For example:

A: "Yo I want better customer service with the company only using this one person"

B: "You're having your cake and eating it too"

A: "Well yeah, if I'm gonna have the cake, I'm gonna eat it."
 
NekoFever

NekoFever

Member
Morrigan Stark said:
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
Click to expand...

You're misinterpreting what 'prove' means in this context. But to be fair, so are most people who use it.

Imagine there are five pits and four of them have safety railings around them. People keep falling into the fifth, thus this exception to the rule that pits should have railings demonstrates the necessity of such a rule. It proves the rule.

It's less common definition of the word nowadays, but it is a legitimate one.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
AnathemicOne said:
The context is changed from consumption to possession by virtue of the guest/waiter interaction.
Click to expand...

Correct. Just as the context for "have" in "you can't have your cake and eat it too" changes from consumption to possession, because it wouldn't make sense to reference consumption twice in an idiom that is by definition about both consumption and possession.
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
UncleSporky said:
Correct. Just as the context for "have" in "you can't have your cake and eat it too" changes from consumption to possession, because it wouldn't make sense to reference consumption twice in an idiom that is by definition about both consumption and possession.
Click to expand...

But how does the context of that idiom refer to possession if the word "have" is ambiguous and "eat" is not? Wouldn't it be better to say "You can't possess the cake and eat it, and still possess it afterwards."
 
M

Manu

Member
AnathemicOne said:
That's how English works? It's why I'm having trouble grasping "You can't have and eat your cake too." Because there's no context other than food consumption within that sentence in a vacuum which it is often used in. I get what its supposed to mean, I'm arguing what people think it means doesn't mean what it means.

For example:

A: "Yo I want better customer service with the company only using this one person"

B: "You're having your cake and eating it too"

A: "Well yeah, if I'm gonna have the cake, I'm gonna eat it."
Click to expand...

Literally this:

whatsinaname said:
1) OP: I don't get the idiom.

2) Poster A: That word in the idiom can mean 'A' or 'B' but in this case it means 'A', so the idiom makes sense.

3) OP: But I always take that word to mean 'B' so I don't understand.

4) Go To Step 2
Click to expand...
 
E

elrechazado

Banned
UncleSporky said:
Correct. Just as the context for "have" in "you can't have your cake and eat it too" changes from consumption to possession, because it wouldn't make sense to reference consumption twice in an idiom that is by definition about both consumption and possession.
Click to expand...
Liiiiies
If this were true, op would be wrong twice by his own standard!
 
P

Plum

Member
AnathemicOne said:
That's how English works? It's why I'm having trouble grasping "You can't have and eat your cake too." Because there's no context other than food consumption within that sentence in a vacuum which it is often used in. I get what its supposed to mean, I'm arguing what people think it means doesn't mean what it means.

For example:

A: "Yo I want better customer service with the company only using this one person"

B: "You're having your cake and eating it too"
Click to expand...

The context is in the idiom itself. It being cake is, as LordRaptor said, so those young enough to not care/not know about money can understand; that's it. You can swap it with literally any consumable item and it would make sense:

"You can't have your money and spend it too."
"You can't have your bricks and build a house with them too."
"You can't have your gasoline and fuel your car too."

Yet it suddenly doesn't because "have" can mean "eat" sometimes.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
AnathemicOne said:
But how does the context of that idiom refer to possession if the word "have" is ambiguous and "eat" is not? Wouldn't it be better to say "You can't possess the cake and eat it too."
Click to expand...

You just said the context changed in the waiter interaction. Wouldn't it have been better to say "waiter, do you possess the lamb shank?" But they didn't say that, because the context was enough for a shared understanding. The same is true with the idiom. All people understand that "have" is not ambiguous in that particular usage.
 
N

Not

Banned
It means, "the cake won't still be there once you eat it"

The cake will be gone

No regenerating cake for you
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
Plum said:
The context is in the idiom itself. It being cake is, as LordRaptor said, so those young enough to not care/not know about money can understand; that's it. You can swap it with literally any consumable item and it would make sense:

"You can't have your money and spend it too."
"You can't have your bricks and build a house with them too."
"You can't have your gasoline and fuel your car too."

Yet it suddenly doesn't because "have" can mean "eat" sometimes.
Click to expand...

Because those objects aren't in reference of food or consumption thereof, unlike cake. Again.

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

Sure you can eat money, but that's not normal, unlike eating cake.

So with those in mind, how is "Having your cake and eating it too" = "Eating your cake and eating it too" a fallacy?
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
AnathemicOne said:
Because those objects aren't in reference of food or consumption thereof, unlike cake. Again.

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

Sure you can eat money, but that's not normal, unlike eating cake.

So with those in mind, how is "Having your cake and eating it too" = "Eating your cake and eating it too" a fallacy?
Click to expand...

You just showed earlier that you have a capacity for allowing for context to change the meaning of the word. You said that context means when you ask a waiter, "do you have lamb shank this evening?" you know that you aren't asking him if he ate it due to the relationship of the people involved, even in spite of its food context. The same is true for the idiom.
 
P

Prez

Member
AnathemicOne said:
Because those objects aren't in reference of food or consumption thereof, unlike cake. Again.

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

Sure you can eat money, but that's not normal, unlike eating cake.

So with those in mind, how is "Having your cake and eating it too" = "Eating your cake and eating it too" a fallacy?
Click to expand...

Say have one more time I dare you
 
P

Plum

Member
AnathemicOne said:
Because those objects aren't in reference of food or consumption thereof, unlike cake. Again.

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

Sure you can eat money, but that's not normal, unlike eating cake.

So with those in mind, how is "Having your cake and eating it too" = "Eating your cake and eating it too" a fallacy?
Click to expand...

Have does not automatically mean eat when talking about food
 
M

Manu

Member
AnathemicOne said:
Because those objects aren't in reference of food or consumption thereof, unlike cake. Again.

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

Sure you can eat money, but that's not normal, unlike eating cake.

So with those in mind, how is "Having your cake and eating it too" = "Eating your cake and eating it too" a fallacy?
Click to expand...

It's not a fallacy. It's ONE possible (wrong) interpretation. Doesn't make the other common, correct interpretation invalid.
 
J

JJDubz

Member
I know the pain of hearing "it is what it is" far too often. Had a boss that would use it between every other sentence when explaining issues. That statement doesn't offer anything, of course it is what it is what the hell else would it be?
 
LordRaptor

LordRaptor

Member
AnathemicOne said:
"Eating your cake and eating it too" a fallacy?
Click to expand...

"You can't eat your cake and eat it too" is just nonsense which is why one of the most well known idioms in the english language probably isn't some linguistic trick to try and fuck people over by being some yo dawg i heard you like eating cake shenanigans
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
UncleSporky said:
You just showed earlier that you have a capacity for allowing for context to change the meaning of the word. You said that context means when you ask a waiter, "do you have lamb shank this evening?" you know that you aren't asking him if he ate it due to the relationship of the people involved, even in spite of its food context. The same is true for the idiom.
Click to expand...

But the idiom exists in a vacuum when declared, not in a guest/waiter context, or any context for that matter, its an idiom, a poor one, but an idiom. Therefore since the context doesn't exist at first glance one must assume it, I assume that its in regards to food consumption and I don't see how that's wrong when "have" is ambigious and "eat" is not.
 
E

Earthbound64

Banned
Hey, wait a minute here...

AnathemicOne said:
elrechazado said:
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]
Click to expand...

The context is changed from consumption to possession by virtue of the guest/waiter interaction.
Click to expand...

Me: Waiter, do you have the cake tonight?

Waiter: Yes sir, I have the cake

...

(He still won't get it)
 
U

UtterlyPerplexed

Member
AnathemicOne said:
But how does the context of that idiom refer to possession if the word "have" is ambiguous and "eat" is not? Wouldn't it be better to say "You can't possess the cake and eat it, and still possess it afterwards."
Click to expand...

Sure, if rephrased like that then it would be crystal clear in what it means, but it's not necessary. By virtue of common sense and logic, it's abundantly clear what the meaning of the idiom is by context.

If you strictly interpret "have" in the context of food to mean to eat, of course the idiom sounds redundant, because you've made it so. It's why logically you immediately presume the word to mean to possess because THEN it makes sense. This isn't complicated. I don't understand how it's ambiguous in any way, shape or form.

There is no rule in the English language that states the word "have" must mean to eat/consume in the context of food.
 
D

David___

Banned
AnathemicOne said:
Because those objects aren't in reference of food or consumption thereof, unlike cake. Again.

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

Sure you can eat money, but that's not normal, unlike eating cake.

So with those in mind, how is "Having your cake and eating it too" = "Eating your cake and eating it too" a fallacy?
Click to expand...

I physically have a cake right next to me.
I can't have the cake physically at all once I eat it
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
JJDubz said:
I know the pain of hearing "it is what it is" far too often. Had a boss that would use it between every other sentence when explaining issues. That statement doesn't offer anything, of course it is what it is what the hell else would it be?
Click to expand...

Well, what the phrase really means is "we're just going to have to deal with it," something along those lines, and you could get just as vehemently angry about that too, I mean of course you're going to have to deal with it. What can be said in a case like this which is not completely obvious and can't be rejected with "well of course?"
 
P

Plum

Member
AnathemicOne said:
But the idiom exists in a vacuum when declared, not in a guest/waiter context, or any context for that matter, its an idiom, a poor one, but an idiom. Therefore since the context doesn't exist at first glance one must assume it, I assume that its in regards to food consumption and I don't see how that's wrong when "have" is ambigious and "eat" is not.
Click to expand...

AnathemicOne said:
I get what its supposed to mean, I'm arguing what people think it means doesn't mean what it means.
Click to expand...

So it's supposedly ambiguous yet you were going all Inigo Montoya on us a few posts back?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, you know.
 
C

ChrisD

Member
Vigilant Walrus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I prefer the inverse, "Don't treat others how you'd hate to be treated" (or something like that). Basically, don't be a dick, because you wouldn't like it if they acted that way towards you.

It's still flawed if you think on it, but not quite as much.. In my head, at least. Like you said though, people do get the meaning regardless, but it's a good point you bring up.
 
E

Earthbound64

Banned
ChrisD said:
Yeah, I prefer the inverse, "Don't treat others how you'd hate to be treated" (or something like that). Basically, don't be a dick, because you wouldn't like it if they acted that way towards you.

It's still flawed if you think on it, but not quite as much.. In my head, at least. Like you said though, people do get the meaning regardless, but it's a good point you bring up.
Click to expand...

"Be nice to others if you want them to be nice to you."
*"Nice" defined by whatever is "nice" to each individual person.
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
The idiom "You can't have your cake and eat it too" fails on two fronts, and I feel that I'm getting mixed up in my explanations.

The first scenario is the one I'm currently talking about in that "have" and "eat" are equivalent and in the context of a declared idiom (like calling out a fallacy) is in a vacuum, thus I cannot assume the idiom means possession due to "have" being ambiguous. "Eat" is not however, therefore the context is anchored to that word in food consumption and even moreso when "cake" is involved.

The second scenario is the definition of cake itself. Cake exists to be consumed, why would you not eat it? Because you're full maybe? Sure, that can happen, but typically cake exists to be eaten, you shouldn't be ashamed of eating the cake.
 
V

VegiHam

Member
AnathemicOne said:
The second scenario is the definition of cake itself. Cake exists to be consumed, why would you not eat it?
Click to expand...

Because you want to save it for later. You might want to eat it tomorrow. But you can't do that but also eat it right now it's either or.

But it's not even about cake man it's allegorical it's about how superposition collapses under observation. It's Schrodinger's cake. When you open the box it's either eaten or not.
 
V

Volodja

Member
AnathemicOne said:
But the idiom exists in a vacuum when declared, not in a guest/waiter context, or any context for that matter, its an idiom, a poor one, but an idiom. Therefore since the context doesn't exist at first glance one must assume it, I assume that its in regards to food consumption and I don't see how that's wrong when "have" is ambigious and "eat" is not.
Click to expand...
To Have can mean To Eat in some contexts, in the same contexts it can retain its To Possess meaning. In spite of that people still use To Have in phrases related to food, without having to specify the meaning ("Do you have mints?" for example, is usually gonna be used to ask somebody if they possess mints, not if they abitually eat mints). Idiomatic expressions are used in everyday parlance, therefore they use the commonly used verb (which is not To Possess).

Also, your concept that idioms exist in a vacuum is flat out wrong, they carry their own context, the fact that they carry meaning besides their literal one is basically the whole point of idioms.
Consider the idioms "Fat chance" and "Slim chance". They mean the same thing, literally speaking it makes no sense, however they carry their context and history of usage to reach a commonly understood meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Weird questions about fictional characters that you've thought about...
Community
16
1K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Last night I had to put my cat to sleep
9
684
Blade2.0 replied
Gaming Industry is going against the current to force live service games.
Opinion 2
70
3K
DaGwaphics replied
Hey Youtube, just because I watched one video about [insert topic] doesn't mean you have to flood my home feed with it
Opinion
19
1K
newtypepilot replied
  • Locked
Coping with body dismorphic "disorder"
24
2K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom