I don't get how this derivation of the saying has come about......because it doesn’t make any sense.
Another modern derivation that doesn't make any sense is, 'you can't have your cake and eat it'. I should be, 'you can't eat your cake and have it'.
It was always the former in our family, never heard the latter until this thread. However, each is OK because AND is commutative so both expressions mean exactly the same thing. "You can either have your cake or you can eat it" also means the same as long as you accept the OR is exclusive not inclusive.
Like you, I'd never heard the original version. I only discovered it when I looked up the 'have your cake and eat it' version one day because it is senseless: If you 'have your cake', i.e. you possess a cake, you can eat it. Other than bakers and supermarkets, there would be absolutely no point in anyone ever having a cake if they couldn't eat it. The unused original phrase makes perfect sense though; the very process of eating your cake destroys it. Once eaten it no longer exists. Two very different phrases. Unfortunately the meaningful one has become defunct.
No, as I said, the two mean the same thing. There is no mention of time, of one coming after the other. If you have you cake, you haven't eaten it. If you've eaten your cake, you don't have it. If it said "You can't have your cake and THEN eat it", I'd agree with you, that doesn't make sense but you're inferring a temporal relationship that isn't stated.
You are right that I am inferring a temporal relationship that isn't actually stated. However that inference is one that we make all the time. If I was to tell you that, "Holmes crossed into the box and Magennis scored". After you'd picked yourself up from the floor, your understanding would be that Magennis scored directly from Holmes' cross. You wouldn't need 'then' to understand it. You would know that I wouldn't be telling you about the cross if it didn't lead to the goal. 'You can't eat your cake and have it' is clear in it's meaning that once eaten your cake no longer exists. Whilst I concede that 'You can't have your cake and and eat it' could mean the same thing, it is ambiguous in that it suggests the possibility of some force stopping you from consuming a cake that you possess.
I don't get how this derivation of the saying has come about......because it doesn’t make any sense.
Another modern derivation that doesn't make any sense is, 'you can't have your cake and eat it'. I should be, 'you can't eat your cake and have it'.
It was always the former in our family, never heard the latter until this thread. However, each is OK because AND is commutative so both expressions mean exactly the same thing. "You can either have your cake or you can eat it" also means the same as long as you accept the OR is exclusive not inclusive.
Like you, I'd never heard the original version. I only discovered it when I looked up the 'have your cake and eat it' version one day because it is senseless: If you 'have your cake', i.e. you possess a cake, you can eat it. Other than bakers and supermarkets, there would be absolutely no point in anyone ever having a cake if they couldn't eat it. The unused original phrase makes perfect sense though; the very process of eating your cake destroys it. Once eaten it no longer exists. Two very different phrases. Unfortunately the meaningful one has become defunct.
No, as I said, the two mean the same thing. There is no mention of time, of one coming after the other. If you have you cake, you haven't eaten it. If you've eaten your cake, you don't have it. If it said "You can't have your cake and THEN eat it", I'd agree with you, that doesn't make sense but you're inferring a temporal relationship that isn't stated.
You are right that I am inferring a temporal relationship that isn't actually stated. However that inference is one that we make all the time. If I was to tell you that, "Holmes crossed into the box and Magennis scored". After you'd picked yourself up from the floor, your understanding would be that Magennis scored directly from Holmes' cross. You wouldn't need 'then' to understand it. You would know that I wouldn't be telling you about the cross if it didn't lead to the goal. 'You can't eat your cake and have it' is clear in it's meaning that once eaten your cake no longer exists. Whilst I concede that 'You can't have your cake and and eat it' could mean the same thing, it is ambiguous in that it suggests the possibility of some force stopping you from consuming a cake that you possess.
If you told me Holmes crossed and Magennis scored, you're right, I'd have to pick myself off the floor. However, I'd be inferring a relationship between the two acts that you haven't explicitly stated. It could have been that Holmes crossed in the first minute and Magennis scored in the 90th minute and the two acts had nothing to do with each other. Of course, it would probably be perfectly reasonable for me to make that inference because of the context in which we were having the conversation.
However, in the matter of the possession and consumption of the cake, I've always taken it as two statements about the state of the cake and to mean the two states are mutually exclusive. Having said that, the eat / have order is, as you say, unambiguous.
People who say borrow instead of lend, as in "Can you borrow me a fiver?"
And @JamesSeed is right, the dictionary literally says "Literally: not literally". I guess it makes sense in a bad == good in 80s style type of things, but it is a little crazy.
Bloke at work was always using the expression he or she "Turned round and said----". I wondered if everyone he knew faced away from him before turning round to speak. But then he was an obnoxious twat. Or should that be an obnouxshas twat!!
Comments
E.g. it was so funny I literally exploded.
Wonderful woman, just not the brightest spark.
His instead of he's (or vice versa)
Somethink
Nothink
Aksed instead of asked
‘Very unique’. No, it’s very rare, or very unusual, or it is unique. There is no sliding scale, something is either unique or it isn’t.
However, in the matter of the possession and consumption of the cake, I've always taken it as two statements about the state of the cake and to mean the two states are mutually exclusive. Having said that, the eat / have order is, as you say, unambiguous.
Nope you mean causal link.
"I can't come in today, I've got a sore throat and guitar."
I simply responded 'Yes I should HAVE'
Her reply was something along the lines of 'F*** off you d***.'
Informal: 'used for emphasis while not being literally true.'
This literally makes my blood boil.
And @JamesSeed is right, the dictionary literally says "Literally: not literally". I guess it makes sense in a bad == good in 80s style type of things, but it is a little crazy.
I wondered if everyone he knew faced away from him before turning round to speak.
But then he was an obnoxious twat.
Or should that be an obnouxshas twat!!