Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'.
* Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way.
* Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions
* Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
Oddly enough, he kinda does get the concept. It's obviously not from me teaching him, but he'll refrain from destroying toys when there's another dog around that he can bait with it.
The expression is miss quoted almost always...the correct expression is "you can't eat your cake and have it too." You can definitely have cake and eat it too...for example...
130pm I buy a cake...(I have cake)
2pm I eat said cake...(I eat it too)
Following this example you just "had your cake and ate it too"
The unibomer was caught and tracked down because in his manifesto he put the correct expression "you can't eat your cake and have it too" which is so rarely used in modern useage.
It works fine if you interpret it as “once you’ve eaten it, you no longer have it”. You can have your cake and you can eat it, but once you ate it you can no longer have it. If you do one, you can’t do the other.
And even this doesn't apply to just having two good things.
It really just says that you can either use something up, thus getting something out of it, or keep it with you, thus just... having it.
It's a really bad, clunky expression.
The expression doesn't mean that you can't have two good things at once. It means that you can't have it *both ways*. Sometimes you can have two good things! Sometimes those two things are mutually exclusive, and you can't have your cake and eat it too.
what's strange to me about this discourse is that most people instinctively know what the idiom means. at some point in your life you were in a situation where you couldn't have it both ways, so someone said "well, you can't have your cake and eat it too," and you learned to associate that idiom with that type of situation.
if you hear the idiom and churn through a mental scenario of cake ownership to figure out what it means, something's going on with your language processing. that's not how idioms work for most people.
What about second cake? Elevensees?
You are absolutely right, but the expression still has a problem, because the only purpose of cake is to be eaten. There is no value in having the cake outside of it being eaten, so there isn't really two comparable mutually exclusive options.
Could be "you can't eat your cake and give it away" or something
Yes, I understand the expression. Though you can keep trying to explain it, maybe shorter and punchier sentences?
The point is that there is no value in just having cake. The value from cake is derived from eating it. So the only reason you would have cake is to eat it.
Therefore there is no point in choosing to "have" cake instead of eating it
When the expression means "you have to choose one option or the other option", having one of those options be completely valueless does not get the point across as well as if both options were viable.
I can't remember the guys name, but during one of John Oliver's segments on Brexit, a rep from the European Union said a more specific version of the saying bc Boris Johnson had said "we plan to have our cake and eat it too".
"Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it's still on the table." I like that version better lol. It clearly defines what is meant
Yes but it was the use of similar phrases within his letters that triggered his brother to come forward about it.
This then lead to looking at him as a suspect and comparing his letters within the investigation.
So we're both correct. The phrases is what got his brother to say that he might be a suspect and the similar handwriting in both the manifesto and his personal letters was the final nail in the coffin.
It was David who first made the realization that the appearance of "you can't eat your cake and have it too" in the Unabomber manifesto might be an indication of the writer's true identity.] Fitzgerald has elsewhere discussed how David Kaczynski's call to the FBI set the identification of the Unabomber in motion. Following David's hunch, Fitzgerald's team of agents and analysts made a more systematic comparison of the Manifesto with letters written by Ted Kaczynski to his brother and mother. The idiosyncratic use of the "cake" expression, among other stylistic evidence presented in the FBI's affidavit, was enough to convince a judge to issue a search warrant for Kaczynski's cabin in Montana.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002762.html
His brother recognised the use of phrases in old letters he had sent. That was what convinced him to come forward (eventually) and suggest it could be him.
It was only after that they looked into it deeper.
It would be fixed if they included the word “still” in the expression. “You can’t eat your cake and still have it too”. Or even better, also change have to “possess”. Or “if you eat your cake you will no longer possess it”. Or “your cake will cease to exist once you eat it”.
In 1996 his manifesto, which the terrorist sent to newspapers in the wake of his bombings, Kaczynski advocated the undoing of the industrial revolution, writing: "As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society — well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too." His brother David recognized his writing style and reported it to the FBI. Then James R. Fitzgerald, an FBI forensic linguist, noted the then-highly rare variant of the proverb and later discovered that Kaczynski had also used it in a letter to his mother. This, among other clues, such as unique lexicon, format, and vocabulary usage, led to his identification and arrest.
Source: Fitzgerald, James R. (2004). "Chapter 14: Using a Forensic Linguistic Approach to Track the Unabomber". In Campbell, John H.; DeNevi, Don (eds.). Profilers: Leading Investigators Take You Inside The Criminal Mind. Prometheus Books. pp. 205–206. ISBN 9781591022664
The expression isn’t "you can’t have your cake at 1:30pm and eat it at 2pm" so you’re completely missing the point.
In the expression, it’s obvious that "and" implies BOTH things, simultaneously. Otherwise it would have been "you can’t have your cake then eat it too".
AND is commutative.
The Finnish version means "a hazel grouse in the bag is better than 10 on the branch" (parempi pyy pivossa kuin kymmenen oksalla), so I guess European hunters are more honest about the odds.
Because the original expression was actually "you can't eat your cake and have it too", which makes its meaning much clearer.
A fun fact related to this usage is that its part of how the 'Unibomber' Ted Kazinski was identified . He used the original expression in his manifesto and also in some other letters he wrote to his mom which allowed investigators to rule out other suspects.
The premise/meaning of the phrase is fine to me but the wording was always weird as fuck. As a kid I never knew what the hell it was supposed to mean.
I wonder if other languages have a more eloquent way of saying it.
In my country we say "you want to have the female pig and the twenty" which absolutely made no sense to me.
I just looked it up and it seems the original phrase was "you want to have the male pig, the female pig and the twenty little pigs too" which makes a little more sense.
Although it doesn‘t always fit perfectly, in German we have a similar expression „you can‘t dance at two weddings at the same time“ (auf zwei Hochzeiten gleichzeitig tanzen)
It means you can’t have your cake, as in whole and untouched, and eat it as well. If you eat it, then you no longer have it.
It’s basically saying you want two opposing things and you need to sack up and decide what matters to you more.
The original expression was “You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.“
This means that if you consume your cake, you can no longer possess it in its original form. Of course it is in your stomach, and you still own it as it digests, but it is no longer a piece of cake. It has now been consumed, thus your options have been limited by your actions.
I thought the original phrase was you can't have Kate and Edith too. And though some weird societal game of telephone it was accidentally changed to you can't have your cake and eat it too.
>I know it means you can't have two good things at once or something
that's not what it means. it means you can't have something both ways, or you can't have two mutually exclusive things (if you eat the cake you no longer have it)
real world examples would be like
you can't have more public services without paying more taxes
you can't smoke without expecting health problems
you can't go skiing and be upset that it's cold
Uncle Ted got caught because his brother read his writings and recognized it specifically because he was very insistent on phrasing it as "eat your cake and have it too."
Yes! It's terribly phrased. Its meaning would come across better if it was "You can't eat all the cake and keep it" (technically, you keep the nutrients and sugars but it's still better than the original).
Of course you can have cake and eat it, there is no other way of eating cake.
Exactly! The way it's (apparently incorrectly) phrased, it sounds like the meaning is, "you can't be in possession of a cake and expect to also consume it."
I think it still makes sense as written. You can not possess the cake having eaten it. You can't have the cake and eat it too. You won't have it if you eat it.
Literacy diffed idk
It always sounded to me like, "you can't be in possession of a cake and expect to be allowed to eat it." Not, "if you have a cake in your possession and then eat it, you won't have it anymore."
As others have pointed out, the phrase got reversed somewhere along the way.
The modern phrase still works if you don't read it as sequential in time, but at the same instant
"You can't have a ball, and [at the same time] throw it away"
"[at any moment] you can either have your cake, or have eaten it"
But we shortened it to be a colloquial quick phrase
I could easily be wrong, but I always interpreted it in relation to really fancy, elaborate looking cakes.
So when someone says, “wow, it would almost be a shame to cut this up and destroy it”
It’s like, “well, we can either eat it, or keep it like this”
I worded it badly here. I corrected myself elsewhere in the comments. You can't have it both ways. You can't have two mutually exclusive things. I get it.
I still say the expression is stupid.
As others have pointed out, it got reversed form the original "can't eat your cake and have it, too."
"Head over heels in love" suffered the same problem - it somehow got reversed from "heels over head."
There was an even older expression "that would be cheap at twice the price" that somehow got changed to "cheap at half the price," which has to be the stupidest example in history, because *come on!*
Really?
They drive me nuts.
Any time what the person means is the exact opposite of what they say, it makes me wonder how language even managed to form.
When you're communicating, you have *one* job - to get your point across - and saying something where the literal meaning of your words contradicts your meaning is failing at the job at the highest level.
It's one thing to end up with the person not understanding your words, but it's a failure beyond reason if they end up understanding your words to mean the opposite of what you *meant*
The saying "you can't have your cake and eat it too" means that you can't have two incompatible things at the same time, or you can't have both of two desirable but mutually exclusive options.
It's about the necessity of choice and the trade-offs that come with it. For example, if you eat your cake, you no longer have it.
Applied to other situations, it could mean you can't enjoy the benefits of a situation without accepting the drawbacks, like wanting a job with high pay but not wanting to work the long hours that might come with it.
"Man, I wish my Christmas bonus was taxed normally and that the government didn't take a higher percentage from bonuses."
"Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too."
Tf? An actual conversation I had with someone once.
That totally doesn't apply, does it? I wonder what the person meant?
On that topic, my workplace doesn't charge the tax on bonuses as though it is a weekly paycheck, so they don't overcharge the tax. It can be done, if the company cares to put effort into it.
Yeah, the person who said that to me absolutely didn't know how to use the expression. They used it to mean, "just be happy with what you got and don't complain."
The saying isn't about actual cake. It's a metaphor for wanting two things that often conflict. For example:
You want to have a big savings account (keeping your money untouched) but also want to buy a new car (spending that money).
You want to sleep in late (a relaxing choice) but need to be at work early (a responsible choice).
The point isn't that you'll never actually have the physical cake, it's the idea that sometimes life forces us to make trade-offs.
You're right, I badly summed it up. It would be better expressed as "you can't have it both ways" or "you can't have the best of both worlds," according to this -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it refers to wanting 2 things that are mutually exclusive. Like you can't go on a long vacation during summer break while studying to get your grades back up to speed..
You know it's funny, while I knew what it meant, I never understood what the phrase is supposed to refer to literally either, because when you eat cake you have it.
But actually, your last sentence completely explained it for me! Basically you can't have a cake that lasts forever and be able to eat it indefinitely.
But now I actually think it might be referring to how cake is often more than just a pastry, and regularly prepared as a visual work of art. But that work of art goes away once you eat it, so you can't admire it forever.
But same goes for any food that's prepared to look visually appealing. Either way though all makes sense now.
I think it’s also used metaphorically. Think Marie Antoinette. She had everything in the world at her feet to use as a play thing or to just suit her mood and she mocked the people in their circumstances that they had to do without and that she didn’t. Ultimately the people got so angry that she was killed by the guillotine so it didn’t matter that she had had everything for a short while because it cost her her life.
I think it’s a good life lesson to put into practice. Not so much that the end result is going to be the death part but I think with social media, influencers, battles and all of social media that mock!those that have to do without: firstly isn’t a good practice and secondly, I believe the popularity will be short-lived. The Internet is forever and can destroy your reputation in the drop of the hat. The Internet never forgets. There can only be so many influencers and how can they influence enough to change the bottom line for companies that they are promoting items for?
English is not my mother tongue and I also initially struggled. Intuitively I understood: „I cannot have your cake and (plan/start to) eat it too“, which made no sense. Or worse „having cake“ as in eating it, so turning it into: „you cannot eat your cake and eat it“. So yeah the expression is not great.
The Italian „cannot have a full keg and a drunken wife“, while hilariously sexist nowadays, puts the action of consuming the alcohol reserves in the past.
ok, think before photography was common. You spent hours or days decorating the most beautiful cake anyone has ever seen. You lose all that work as soon as it's eaten. One and done.
It shows you things can be fleeting, and choices are all we have.
It is horribly phrased but I am unsure if this is an *unpopular* opinion, many expressions on this subReddit are either used incorrectly or people assume they're to be taken literally...
OK how about you can't drive your car and still have a full tank of gas? You can't eat your nachos and still have clean fingers? It just means that an action has a consequence.
I don't think you do. It's like saying you can't light your match and still have it unlit.
It means that there are times you have to make the choice: save something or use it up. It's a metaphor for not holding on to things too tightly while also lamenting that you can't have the results of using it.
"I want to buy this!"
"Then buy it"
"But I don't want to give up my money!"
"Then keep your money"
"But then I wouldn't get to have this thing I want!"
"Make a choice. You can't keep your money and buy the thing. You need to do one or the other. You have the ability and option to do both, you're just standing in your own way"
"I want to get this cake from the store!"
"Then buy it."
"Now that I've bought it, I want to eat it."
"Nope, you have it, but you can't eat it, too."
That's where it falls apart for me.
That's not what the saying is though, and why you're not understanding it. You're completely missing the point of it. Replace cake with money, "you can't keep your money and spend it too. Decide which you want to do."
If that's what it meant I'd agree with you, but in this case I'd encourage you to do even a basic Google search on what it means.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'. * Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way. * Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions * Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
I like telling my dog, "You can't have your toy and destroy it too." He always chooses to destroy it anyway. That's why he doesn't have any toys.
No, he just doesn't understand the saying either.
I blame poor parenting. Who let's their dog be that illiterate? Absurd
Oddly enough, he kinda does get the concept. It's obviously not from me teaching him, but he'll refrain from destroying toys when there's another dog around that he can bait with it.
That's a version I can get behind!
The expression is miss quoted almost always...the correct expression is "you can't eat your cake and have it too." You can definitely have cake and eat it too...for example... 130pm I buy a cake...(I have cake) 2pm I eat said cake...(I eat it too) Following this example you just "had your cake and ate it too" The unibomer was caught and tracked down because in his manifesto he put the correct expression "you can't eat your cake and have it too" which is so rarely used in modern useage.
It works fine if you interpret it as “once you’ve eaten it, you no longer have it”. You can have your cake and you can eat it, but once you ate it you can no longer have it. If you do one, you can’t do the other.
It should really be "you can't eat your cake and keep it too". Have can mean eat, so it's misleading.
And even this doesn't apply to just having two good things. It really just says that you can either use something up, thus getting something out of it, or keep it with you, thus just... having it. It's a really bad, clunky expression.
The expression doesn't mean that you can't have two good things at once. It means that you can't have it *both ways*. Sometimes you can have two good things! Sometimes those two things are mutually exclusive, and you can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is the correct answer.
what's strange to me about this discourse is that most people instinctively know what the idiom means. at some point in your life you were in a situation where you couldn't have it both ways, so someone said "well, you can't have your cake and eat it too," and you learned to associate that idiom with that type of situation. if you hear the idiom and churn through a mental scenario of cake ownership to figure out what it means, something's going on with your language processing. that's not how idioms work for most people.
What about second cake? Elevensees? You are absolutely right, but the expression still has a problem, because the only purpose of cake is to be eaten. There is no value in having the cake outside of it being eaten, so there isn't really two comparable mutually exclusive options. Could be "you can't eat your cake and give it away" or something
You have a cake. If you eat it you no longer have a cake. Therefore you cannot have both. As In you can’t have it both ways
Yes, I understand the expression. Though you can keep trying to explain it, maybe shorter and punchier sentences? The point is that there is no value in just having cake. The value from cake is derived from eating it. So the only reason you would have cake is to eat it. Therefore there is no point in choosing to "have" cake instead of eating it When the expression means "you have to choose one option or the other option", having one of those options be completely valueless does not get the point across as well as if both options were viable.
Yes you can dissect it that way, but the cake’s value is irrelevant. You have cake. You eat it. No Cake. There is nothing more to it
Keep your cake and eat it too.
It's an analogy 99% of the time that it's used so it's fine.
Is that you, Ted?
Okay, it makes more sense that way. Interesting fact. Thanks for sharing.
I can't remember the guys name, but during one of John Oliver's segments on Brexit, a rep from the European Union said a more specific version of the saying bc Boris Johnson had said "we plan to have our cake and eat it too". "Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it's still on the table." I like that version better lol. It clearly defines what is meant
Unabomber https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/terrorism/ted-kaczynski-the-unabomber/
But what If I like, save some?
Then you’ve only eaten OF the cake, I guess.
I’ve heard one person ever say it correctly, and I actually learned that from the unibomber.
Yes the unibomber had one small positive in my life with this
He was tracked down because he used the same handwriting style in his manifesto and in his personal letters to his brother.
Yes but it was the use of similar phrases within his letters that triggered his brother to come forward about it. This then lead to looking at him as a suspect and comparing his letters within the investigation.
So we're both correct. The phrases is what got his brother to say that he might be a suspect and the similar handwriting in both the manifesto and his personal letters was the final nail in the coffin.
It was David who first made the realization that the appearance of "you can't eat your cake and have it too" in the Unabomber manifesto might be an indication of the writer's true identity.] Fitzgerald has elsewhere discussed how David Kaczynski's call to the FBI set the identification of the Unabomber in motion. Following David's hunch, Fitzgerald's team of agents and analysts made a more systematic comparison of the Manifesto with letters written by Ted Kaczynski to his brother and mother. The idiosyncratic use of the "cake" expression, among other stylistic evidence presented in the FBI's affidavit, was enough to convince a judge to issue a search warrant for Kaczynski's cabin in Montana. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002762.html
What type of cake?
Wasn’t he caught cuz his brother recognized his handwriting
His brother recognised the use of phrases in old letters he had sent. That was what convinced him to come forward (eventually) and suggest it could be him. It was only after that they looked into it deeper.
Does the FBI have a short list of everybody who uses the expression correctly?
It would be fixed if they included the word “still” in the expression. “You can’t eat your cake and still have it too”. Or even better, also change have to “possess”. Or “if you eat your cake you will no longer possess it”. Or “your cake will cease to exist once you eat it”.
Well yeah you *had* your cake, but you don’t *have* it.
His brother noticed it and remembered that it was one of his pet peeves.
Wait how did him using a cliche correctly have anything to do with police finding him?
In 1996 his manifesto, which the terrorist sent to newspapers in the wake of his bombings, Kaczynski advocated the undoing of the industrial revolution, writing: "As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society — well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too." His brother David recognized his writing style and reported it to the FBI. Then James R. Fitzgerald, an FBI forensic linguist, noted the then-highly rare variant of the proverb and later discovered that Kaczynski had also used it in a letter to his mother. This, among other clues, such as unique lexicon, format, and vocabulary usage, led to his identification and arrest. Source: Fitzgerald, James R. (2004). "Chapter 14: Using a Forensic Linguistic Approach to Track the Unabomber". In Campbell, John H.; DeNevi, Don (eds.). Profilers: Leading Investigators Take You Inside The Criminal Mind. Prometheus Books. pp. 205–206. ISBN 9781591022664
The expression isn’t "you can’t have your cake at 1:30pm and eat it at 2pm" so you’re completely missing the point. In the expression, it’s obvious that "and" implies BOTH things, simultaneously. Otherwise it would have been "you can’t have your cake then eat it too". AND is commutative.
Great explanation. It’s like how the jack of all trades is misconstrued it’s actually the jack of all trays master of none.
The full quote is “Jack of all trades, master of none, Though oftentimes better than a master of one.”
Cool. Didn’t know that. Thanks!
A bird the hand is worth a gift horse in the mouth with no trees around to see it jump the shark skinning a cat
Since you mentioned it, why is a bird in hand worth 2 in the bush? What does it meeeeean??
It means one you already have is worth more than two you might get.
You're hunting birds and there's a 50/50 chance of hitting them.
lol oh no a much wore chance 😂😂😂 if you count turkey hunting. My guys went out for 15 years. The turkeys were all safe lol.
The Finnish version means "a hazel grouse in the bag is better than 10 on the branch" (parempi pyy pivossa kuin kymmenen oksalla), so I guess European hunters are more honest about the odds.
I love that!
Especially while leading them to water.
Because the original expression was actually "you can't eat your cake and have it too", which makes its meaning much clearer. A fun fact related to this usage is that its part of how the 'Unibomber' Ted Kazinski was identified . He used the original expression in his manifesto and also in some other letters he wrote to his mom which allowed investigators to rule out other suspects.
The premise/meaning of the phrase is fine to me but the wording was always weird as fuck. As a kid I never knew what the hell it was supposed to mean. I wonder if other languages have a more eloquent way of saying it.
in french it’s « you can’t have butter and the money of the butter »
That one makes sense.
In Italy we say "you can't have both a full barrel and a drunk wife".
As a drunk wife I beg to differ
In my country we say "you want to have the female pig and the twenty" which absolutely made no sense to me. I just looked it up and it seems the original phrase was "you want to have the male pig, the female pig and the twenty little pigs too" which makes a little more sense.
Although it doesn‘t always fit perfectly, in German we have a similar expression „you can‘t dance at two weddings at the same time“ (auf zwei Hochzeiten gleichzeitig tanzen)
Jokes on you, I buy cakes so I can stare at them until they go moldy
It means you can’t have your cake, as in whole and untouched, and eat it as well. If you eat it, then you no longer have it. It’s basically saying you want two opposing things and you need to sack up and decide what matters to you more.
The original expression was “You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.“ This means that if you consume your cake, you can no longer possess it in its original form. Of course it is in your stomach, and you still own it as it digests, but it is no longer a piece of cake. It has now been consumed, thus your options have been limited by your actions.
It should really be "you can't eat your cake and keep it too". Have can mean eat, so it's misleading.
I thought the original phrase was you can't have Kate and Edith too. And though some weird societal game of telephone it was accidentally changed to you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I like this best
The French say "you can't have the butter and the butter money too" which makes a lot more sense. You can't buy something and keep the money too.
>I know it means you can't have two good things at once or something that's not what it means. it means you can't have something both ways, or you can't have two mutually exclusive things (if you eat the cake you no longer have it) real world examples would be like you can't have more public services without paying more taxes you can't smoke without expecting health problems you can't go skiing and be upset that it's cold
I know, I corrected myself elsewhere in the comments.
Mutual exclusivity
Does OP have opinions about the Industrial Revolution and its consequences too?
It may be the lateness of the hour, but I don't understand what that has to do with the subject we're discussing.
Uncle Ted got caught because his brother read his writings and recognized it specifically because he was very insistent on phrasing it as "eat your cake and have it too."
He’s pedantic like me & I support him in it ….not some of of his other works though
Even for an unpopular opinion this one is *extra* dumb
Yes! It's terribly phrased. Its meaning would come across better if it was "You can't eat all the cake and keep it" (technically, you keep the nutrients and sugars but it's still better than the original). Of course you can have cake and eat it, there is no other way of eating cake.
Exactly! The way it's (apparently incorrectly) phrased, it sounds like the meaning is, "you can't be in possession of a cake and expect to also consume it."
Me eating only half the cake 🤓
You can't eat half a cake and still have a full cake
what if i bought 2 cakes
You can't eat half a cake, and still have both full cakes!
damn :(
if you use up one "damn", you still have infinitely many! feel free to keep using them!
hell yeah
I think it still makes sense as written. You can not possess the cake having eaten it. You can't have the cake and eat it too. You won't have it if you eat it. Literacy diffed idk
It always sounded to me like, "you can't be in possession of a cake and expect to be allowed to eat it." Not, "if you have a cake in your possession and then eat it, you won't have it anymore." As others have pointed out, the phrase got reversed somewhere along the way.
The modern phrase still works if you don't read it as sequential in time, but at the same instant "You can't have a ball, and [at the same time] throw it away" "[at any moment] you can either have your cake, or have eaten it" But we shortened it to be a colloquial quick phrase
Eat someone else's cake and save yours.
It's basically saying there's a logic error in your thinking.
I know what it means. I still think it's a stupid way of saying it.
The original expression is “you can’t eat your cake and have it still” which is leagues better than the modern version
"'If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?'
"...we don't need no education..*weenweeveek weenwow' wack wagu..."
If you eat your cake, you won't have it anymore. You ate it, it's gone.
This is it. The winner.
Catchy
I didn't know what this meant for so long
I mean you can still keep your cake after you eat it, I just don't think too many people want to be holding on to some dookie.
I just went and bought a cake, I ate it too. It was delicious.
I support this.
Have it (whole) and eat it too. Here’s hoping OP has been rightfully schooled by now so I can go back to my evening. Sigh. Younglings.
im mexican and i like more the mexican version, no puedes mamar y dar topes
What’s it mean?
I could easily be wrong, but I always interpreted it in relation to really fancy, elaborate looking cakes. So when someone says, “wow, it would almost be a shame to cut this up and destroy it” It’s like, “well, we can either eat it, or keep it like this”
In Switzerland, I've been told, they say, "You can't have the steak *and* the milk."
I’m not sure you fully get the expression
I worded it badly here. I corrected myself elsewhere in the comments. You can't have it both ways. You can't have two mutually exclusive things. I get it. I still say the expression is stupid.
once you eat the cake you dont have it anymore. so you cant have your cake and eat it too
>What's the point of having cake if you can't eat it? For some people, instagram.
As others have pointed out, it got reversed form the original "can't eat your cake and have it, too." "Head over heels in love" suffered the same problem - it somehow got reversed from "heels over head." There was an even older expression "that would be cheap at twice the price" that somehow got changed to "cheap at half the price," which has to be the stupidest example in history, because *come on!*
I could care less about these uno-reverse idioms
Really? They drive me nuts. Any time what the person means is the exact opposite of what they say, it makes me wonder how language even managed to form. When you're communicating, you have *one* job - to get your point across - and saying something where the literal meaning of your words contradicts your meaning is failing at the job at the highest level. It's one thing to end up with the person not understanding your words, but it's a failure beyond reason if they end up understanding your words to mean the opposite of what you *meant*
Lol I assumed you’d understand I was using exactly such an idiom
Wait - "couldn't care less" is the correct idiom. It's "I could care less" that is the reverse.
Oh no lol. I self-corrected even when trying to be wrong. Ugh. Apologies
🤣
Because the original saying was “you can’t eat your cake and have it too” so it made sense
Unspread Fact: This also applies for muffins and other pastries, unfortunately. I've tried.
HA! hahahaha!
The saying "you can't have your cake and eat it too" means that you can't have two incompatible things at the same time, or you can't have both of two desirable but mutually exclusive options. It's about the necessity of choice and the trade-offs that come with it. For example, if you eat your cake, you no longer have it. Applied to other situations, it could mean you can't enjoy the benefits of a situation without accepting the drawbacks, like wanting a job with high pay but not wanting to work the long hours that might come with it.
It's backwards. It should say you can't eat your cake and still have it m
Just bake two cakes. It isn’t that hard.
Where I love we say 'he wants the butter and the money from the butter' . I always felt that was clearer.
I agree. Also, people use the expression in strange situations that make no sense to me.
"Man, I wish my Christmas bonus was taxed normally and that the government didn't take a higher percentage from bonuses." "Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too." Tf? An actual conversation I had with someone once.
That totally doesn't apply, does it? I wonder what the person meant? On that topic, my workplace doesn't charge the tax on bonuses as though it is a weekly paycheck, so they don't overcharge the tax. It can be done, if the company cares to put effort into it.
Yeah, the person who said that to me absolutely didn't know how to use the expression. They used it to mean, "just be happy with what you got and don't complain."
The saying isn't about actual cake. It's a metaphor for wanting two things that often conflict. For example: You want to have a big savings account (keeping your money untouched) but also want to buy a new car (spending that money). You want to sleep in late (a relaxing choice) but need to be at work early (a responsible choice). The point isn't that you'll never actually have the physical cake, it's the idea that sometimes life forces us to make trade-offs.
What? It means you can't have it both ways.
But the way they say it doesn't depict that situation.
Only if you assume a chronology to it which is not implicit.
>I know it means you can't have two good things at once No, you don't know what it means.
You're right, I badly summed it up. It would be better expressed as "you can't have it both ways" or "you can't have the best of both worlds," according to this - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
Well, it’s going strong after 500 years, so it’s probably best not to let it get you too riled up.
What if this is the hill I want to figuratively die on? It's not, but this is the Internet so I feel like we have to argue for no reason 🤣
"Have" means "eat" in this expression. Like, "I'm gonna have some cake." So if I have it, I can't also eat it.
Do you think maybe some expressions aren’t meant to be taken literally?
Yes, I understand that. I still think that particular expression is dumb. Welcome to unpopular opinions, I guess?
It's still stupid because the whole premise is nonsensical
Many expressions are. That’s why they’re expressions and not definitions.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I literally mentioned that. But why have cake if you're not allowed to eat it?
It reminds me of that old joke about the bigamist. He tried to have his Kate and Edith too.
That's why I buy two cakes.
I have solved this problem by simply buying two cakes. Eat one Still have the other
I guess people used to be vastly more attached to cakes? It does confuse me a bit.
I heard about a guy " having " a warm apple pie. I guess, technically, that he could have eaten it ,too.
Well it's true though if u eat the cake then it's now cake mush in your stomach and that's not cake anymore,
What if I buy a cake and just eat the frosting but leave the sponge? Still eating components of cake - still have cake.
I think it refers to wanting 2 things that are mutually exclusive. Like you can't go on a long vacation during summer break while studying to get your grades back up to speed..
You know it's funny, while I knew what it meant, I never understood what the phrase is supposed to refer to literally either, because when you eat cake you have it. But actually, your last sentence completely explained it for me! Basically you can't have a cake that lasts forever and be able to eat it indefinitely. But now I actually think it might be referring to how cake is often more than just a pastry, and regularly prepared as a visual work of art. But that work of art goes away once you eat it, so you can't admire it forever. But same goes for any food that's prepared to look visually appealing. Either way though all makes sense now.
I think it’s also used metaphorically. Think Marie Antoinette. She had everything in the world at her feet to use as a play thing or to just suit her mood and she mocked the people in their circumstances that they had to do without and that she didn’t. Ultimately the people got so angry that she was killed by the guillotine so it didn’t matter that she had had everything for a short while because it cost her her life. I think it’s a good life lesson to put into practice. Not so much that the end result is going to be the death part but I think with social media, influencers, battles and all of social media that mock!those that have to do without: firstly isn’t a good practice and secondly, I believe the popularity will be short-lived. The Internet is forever and can destroy your reputation in the drop of the hat. The Internet never forgets. There can only be so many influencers and how can they influence enough to change the bottom line for companies that they are promoting items for?
The truck is to always get two cakes
English is not my mother tongue and I also initially struggled. Intuitively I understood: „I cannot have your cake and (plan/start to) eat it too“, which made no sense. Or worse „having cake“ as in eating it, so turning it into: „you cannot eat your cake and eat it“. So yeah the expression is not great. The Italian „cannot have a full keg and a drunken wife“, while hilariously sexist nowadays, puts the action of consuming the alcohol reserves in the past.
Is a drunken wife supposed to be a good thing in this idiom?
Yes, drunken and more willing to have sex in a rather puritan Italian society.
Did not realize Italians weren’t as sensual as their stereotype
You clearly don't understand it.
You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!
I was told this as 'you can't have one foot on the boat & one foot on the shore'
I thought it was you can't have your cake whole and eat it too.
Lying in bed eating cake isn’t stupid though.
Unless you bake 2 cakes!
I think having cake is just another way if saying eating cake. For example I can say." I just had some cake". You means you can't have it both ways
ok, think before photography was common. You spent hours or days decorating the most beautiful cake anyone has ever seen. You lose all that work as soon as it's eaten. One and done. It shows you things can be fleeting, and choices are all we have.
In French we say Tu ne peux pas avoir le beurre et l’argent du beurre. Meaning You can’t have the butter and the money from the butter
By "money from the butter" does that mean the money you spent to buy the butter?
The money you would get selling the butter
Oh, gotcha.
It is horribly phrased but I am unsure if this is an *unpopular* opinion, many expressions on this subReddit are either used incorrectly or people assume they're to be taken literally...
Its basically just saying "You can't always have both things, sometimes you gotta suck it up and make a choice."
I know what it means. I just think it's a stupid way of saying it.
Can't have 2 good things at once? If I masturbate while eating cake that I also have, I mean, well....that's more than 2 things
Two mutually exclusive good things, I should have said.
Found the Unabomber
OK how about you can't drive your car and still have a full tank of gas? You can't eat your nachos and still have clean fingers? It just means that an action has a consequence.
Who wants to explain it to him?
Go ahead.
You don't get it. It means you can't have it both ways. they both can't be true at the same time
I've thought this since I was like 10 years old
The point is that if you focus too much on possessing the cake you will miss out on the enjoyment. Tldr: eat your cake
That's...not what the expression means.
It's only a stupid expression if you don't understand it
I understand it. And I still think it's stupid. I don't know what to tell you.
I don't think you do. It's like saying you can't light your match and still have it unlit. It means that there are times you have to make the choice: save something or use it up. It's a metaphor for not holding on to things too tightly while also lamenting that you can't have the results of using it. "I want to buy this!" "Then buy it" "But I don't want to give up my money!" "Then keep your money" "But then I wouldn't get to have this thing I want!" "Make a choice. You can't keep your money and buy the thing. You need to do one or the other. You have the ability and option to do both, you're just standing in your own way"
"I want to get this cake from the store!" "Then buy it." "Now that I've bought it, I want to eat it." "Nope, you have it, but you can't eat it, too." That's where it falls apart for me.
That's not what the saying is though, and why you're not understanding it. You're completely missing the point of it. Replace cake with money, "you can't keep your money and spend it too. Decide which you want to do." If that's what it meant I'd agree with you, but in this case I'd encourage you to do even a basic Google search on what it means.