Spoken like someone who has had two cakes.
-
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
- Thread starter AnathemicOne
- Start date
Spoken like someone who has had two cakes.
UncleSporky
Member
No, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has a meaning and context that most people can infer. It's brave of you to admit that you cannot do so, and must approach said phrase in a complete vacuum, because most people have so much experience in interpreting this sort of context that they won't be able to understand someone who doesn't.
I mean, look at other phrases you're likely to not be able to understand:
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," maybe the "bird in the hand" is referring to giving someone the finger
"Too many cooks spoil the broth," maybe "spoil" means to pamper it and give it everything it desires
"A fool and his money are soon parted," maybe "parted" means combing your hair to one side, so the dude put his money on his head and pushed it around
"You reap what you sow," for all we know "sow" could be referring to a female pig
I mean, since by your estimation, idioms must be viewed in a vacuum and all the words contained in them are thus ambiguous and outside context.
AnathemicOne
Banned
But it terms of using the idiom as a logical fallacy. The inherent meaning is "No, you shouldn't have the cake and eat it." Why though? Why would you not eat the cake?
Have is not ambiguous in the context of the idiom.
Have means 'possess' in the context of the idiom.
Nobody but you is confused by this.
eso76
Member
The idiom should be reversed as to say you "want to eat cake and still have (=own/hold) it".
In my country the same concept is expressed with a much more colourful idiom when someone wants their "wine cask full and a drunk wife".
As in, you'd like your wife to be drunk, but you also want that to happen without losing your wine.
SirMossyBloke
Member
Probably already said, but:
"It's always in the last place you look"
Of course it fucking is. Why keep looking when you've found it?
"It's always in the last place you look"
Of course it fucking is. Why keep looking when you've found it?
Not shoudn't. Can't. As in "it is impossible" not "it is forbidden"
UncleSporky
Member
The implication being "the last place you think to look," as in, too often you find things in a really stupid place, which is probably why you lost it to begin with. As opposed to the obvious place, like finding your car keys in your pocket where you would expect. Instead they're in the microwave for some reason. Why did you put your car keys there?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
The original saying was You cant eat your cake and have it too. Which makes more sense. Because if you eat it, its gone.
(Actually, according to this New York Times article, the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs quotes a writing from 1546 that says, Wolde ye bothe eate your cake, and haue your cake?)
But stupid people switched it around and now were stuck with people making excuses for how it still makes sense if you dont view the actions as chronological events and instead view them as simultaneous ones.
SirMossyBloke
Member
Well then it should bloody say that.
LordRaptor
Member
Except they are not.
"Have" refers to ownership. It always refers to ownership in its standard conjugation.
"I have cake" - I am in possession of cake.
"You have cake" - you possess cake.
"He/She/It has cake" - they possess cake
"I am having cake" / "You are having cake" / "He/She/It is having cake" this is not the same verb in the same tense in the same usage, and it does not have the same meaning
"Last" just means "Least likely."
Or, "It's always in the last place you'd look."
It's not meant to be taken literally but, yeah, it could be better.
What about "You can't have your cake and eat it too," implies that they're definitely chronological events?
This one is pretty goofy. Also, for me, half the time I find something, it is somewhere that was already checked, but overlooked. So where would that fall? It breaks it further.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Yeah, I'd call all those stupid idioms as well. Except maybe the spoil one. As "cook" refers to the person and broth doesn't have agency to be pampered.
Can "have" equate to "eat" in the context of food consumption? If yes, then "having my cake and eating it too" is just as valid and redundant.
Does it? Then why is "I am having X for [insert meal time here]" common vernacular?
UncleSporky
Member
No because in that case you wouldn't say the phrase. No one says it if they already looked there once.
UtterlyPerplexed
Member
No, the meaning is "you CANNOT still possess the cake when you've already gobbled it up". Nothing to do with whether you should or not. By all means eat that cake you currently possess.
Unless you're a baker who has been paid beforehand to make a lovely wedding cake for a couple getting hitched soon. You may have completed the cake and it's safely stored and ready for the big day. There, you currently have this cake, which is obviously edible and therefore food, but you're not in the process of eating it.
You are again ignoring that idioms by definitions carry their own context and meaning that is not literal, either partially or completely, so any double meaning inside them is not an issue. What you call stupid idioms is just idioms being idioms.
You may just not like the idea of idioms as a whole.
Earthbound64
Banned
Can "have" equate to "possess" in the context of food consumption? If yes, then "having my cake and eating it too" is valid and an idiom.
AnathemicOne
Banned
But the context of food assumption is equally valid and I'd say more justified as "have" is ambiguous as first glance in definition while "eat" and "cake" are not. 2 anchored words for context is greater than 1.
That, or I am just unable to understand them as what most of this thread is impyling.
But "have" is ambiguous. "Eat" and "Cake" don't have double or synonymous meaning with any other word as far as I'm aware. Am I wrong to rely on them for context?
LordRaptor
Member
I literally just told you how the verb "To have" declines, and that it means something different to "Am having" which is not a synonym for "eat" anyway.
"I am having difficulty explaining this to you"
"I am having a baby"
"I am having a shit"
"You are having a laugh"
I am not talking about eating in any of those statements.
Earthbound64
Banned
Earthbound64
Banned
Well, this thread has that in spades!
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Nothing, but that explanation is an afterthought to cover for the fact that everyone has been saying the expression incorrectly.
AnathemicOne
Banned
The context is "eat" and "cake" regarding the idiom, thus food consumption.
Yes.
Yes, you are.
Glad we could clear that up
How so, when I can equate "I am having chicken for dinner" and "I am eating chicken for dinner" no problem without ridicule? It's essentially the same context as "having cake and eating it too" or "having chicken and eating it too", just redundant.
elrechazado
Banned
Why are you eating babies? Disgusting.
Can "have" mean both "eat" and "possess"? Yes. Can it be ambiguous? Yes. Is it ambiguous in the context of the idiom? No.
Everyone knows what "have" means in the idiom, you can ask the originator what it means and they'd agree. You're the only one who's saying otherwise, despite us repeatedly and consistently telling you that "have" does not equal "eat" in the context of the idiom.
It does make a little more sense with them swapped around, but it's still pretty clear what it's trying to say. Idioms don't have to be perfect to make sense and be useful.
Earthbound64
Banned
That has already been explained to you multiple times, I have no interest in doing it again.
I said FUN!
Earthbound64
Banned
Touché.
Ristifer
Member
Idioms are things you have to know, not necessarily derive from the words used in them or easily through context in a way that is unequivocal and understand because, again, they carry their own baggage. We could argue about how the most likely reading of the idiom you're discussing right now is the commonly used one, but at the end of the day it's just a matter of that idiom meaning one thing that is very specific, and that's something that at times with idioms you have to know, as you can't come up with it another way.
I repropose the example of "fat chance" and "slim chance". You can't logic your way out of that, you can get to "slim chance" being a low chance, but "fat chance" being the same is counterintuitive. Now you may call them or just one of the two a stupid idiom, but in reality it's not, because by definition idioms don't need their meaning to be fully conveyed through the words used, you don't logic your way out of them, you just know them.
KaoteK
Member
Well huh, that makes complete sense. Thanks for that, I can now strike that off my "things people say that irrationally annoy me" list
AnathemicOne
Banned
But the idiom is often declared as a logical fallacy. Thus context is in a vacuum and must be assumed. Since "eat" and cake" are not ambiguous and relate to food consumption wouldn't it be logical to assume "have" follows that as well?
I have yet to one counter my argument in satisfactory way in regards to assuming context.
Earthbound64
Banned
Yes.
Ristifer
Member
You're not having fun?!
LordRaptor
Member
Dude.
There is no conjugation of "hve" that means anything other than "Possess" - "am having" is, fuck, I don't know, the present participle or something, there is no ambiguity.
"you have cake" - there is zero ambiguity what is being said here.
It says you are in possession of cake.
You will have cake / you are having cake are not the same tense verb, and do not have the same meaning.
DUDE. TAKE THE FUCKING L ALREADY.
AnathemicOne
Banned
"You have cake" = "You eat cake."
Person A: Yo did you have the cake?
Person B: Yeah I ate it.
That conversation sounds fine.
elrechazado
Banned
This. I wonder if op has any family, and if so, how he expressed this without people thinking he ate his sister.
Earthbound64
Banned
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED‽
Oh, but you don't eat people...
...Unless...
He ate his sister...
OP, that's gross!
UtterlyPerplexed
Member
Yes, the word has more than one definition.
1) "you can't have your cake..." <--- isolated without further context, this is ambiguous at first glance. Does it mean you cannot eat this cake? Or does it mean you cannot possess this cake?
2) "...and eat it." <--- but when this is added in, suddenly you're presented with vital information. You can therefore quickly infer what "have" must mean in this context in order for this idiom to make a lick of sense.
Yes, "have" in this context COULD mean to eat/consume. But that would be weird, because as you yourself said, the idiom would be redundant. There would be no need to have 2) as part of the sentence. As such, "have" in this instance means to possess.
Baron von Loathsome
Member
What logical fallacy?
It's telling people they can't possess something if they wish to also consume it. How is that a logical fallacy?
I'm so confused.
LordRaptor
Member
No, "You have cake" is something Borat would say for much jokes in the sayings of english bad to mean "you eat cake".
You did have the cake is a different usage of the verb. Ye,s, in idiomatic english that sounds fine, but come the fuck on, "you have cake" = "you eat cake" does not sound naturalistic. At all.
AnathemicOne
Banned
But the typical situation the idiom is declared in is to prove/point out a fallacy in argument. Therefore assumption must be had within the full sentence/idiom itself, not just part of it. "Eat" and "Cake" are words whose meaning are not ambiguous, "Have" is. You are better off relying on the "Eat" and "Cake" in regards to food consumption.
Put simply, if I'm having cake, I'm eating cake.
You swapped the tense.
Person A: Do you have the cake?
Person B: Yes I am eating it.
That sounds wrong. A clearly means "is the cake in your possession." Or A would say "Are you having the cake?"
OP are you a non native English speaker used to a language that doesn't distinguish between "I have" and "I am having"?
AnathemicOne
Banned
You never heard of "I'm having X for dinner" as common vernacular where you're from? California must be weird then.
How does that sound wrong? One is asking possession and the other is affirming it in that they are currently eating the cake. I grew up in Japan and am Asian American if you want to know. I understand English well enough (to get my by apparently, idioms suck for me).