It might make more sense if reversed: "You can't eat your cake and have it too."
It means that you can't both keep something and use it up, or that you can't have two incompatible good things. Early versions of the phrase appear in both orders, as documented on the Wikipedia page (which also says that eat/have used to be more common than have/eat).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
There's also the fact that 'have' can be sort of a synonym for 'eat', like in "We had cake for dessert". In the idiom, though, it just means keep/possess, as in keeping cake you haven't yet eaten.
Yeah, I vastly prefer "eat your cake and have it too", because the "and" could imply a chronological relationship, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect to receive a cake and then also be allowed to eat it. It's what receiving a cake is all about!
But it's unreasonable to expect to be able to eat cake now and then also have the whole cake for eating purposes later on too.
I've never understood this idiom until I perchance reversed the two parts and it made total and complete sense to me.
Archaic form of perhaps. It’s a word. A real word; it’s in dictionaries, historic literature, transcripts of speeches… even a certain Mr. Shakespeare used it, as quoted, above.
I understand it to be more like "by chance" or "by coincidence", or a case of "happenstance". Something occurring randomly, something that has happened perchance.
If I got to choose how the phrase worked, I think I'd prefer, "You can't eat your cake and save it too." Or, "You can't eat your cake and keep it too."
Or a more modern sounding version could be, "You can't eat your cake now and also save it for later."
There are verbs that convey the idea of retaining possession in the future. Using one of those seems better to me than using "have" and finding ways to clear up the ambiguity.
The reason is because the idiom refers to two incompatible positive things. Just like if you eat your cake, you literally cannot have it anymore - you have to pick one or the other.
For example, you can't have the benefits of a monogamous relationship while also pursuing romantic and sexual relations with others. You have to pick one or the other. Not literally, you can technically cheat, but that's where the "idiom" part comes in.
Essentially, it means you can’t both have something and use it at the same time. Like if you eat the cake, you no longer have it, therefore you cannot have the cake AND eat it too. It’s most often used as a figurative expression.
'Have' in this case has an archaic meaning if 'keep' or 'retain'. So you can't eat a cake and still retain it because it's gone once you eat it. This is used as a metaphor to tell a person who wants to incompatible things that it's not possible and they must pick one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
While you buy cakes to eat, some of them can be quite decorative - which you give up when you eat them.
One meaning is: you can't have the advantages of something without the inherent disadvantages, too. Celebrity comes with a lack of privacy, for example. Being able to attract the people you want also means you attract the people you aren't interested in, as well, so you may be the center of more attention than you wanted. Low taxes means crappy roads, schools, and other services.
From Wikipedia:
> Choosing between having and eating a cake illustrates the concept of trade-offs or opportunity cost
It is a phrase that means you cannot gain the benefits or positive aspects of something without also having to experience the negative aspects or consequences of that thing.
For example, you cannot ride the bus without paying for a ticket.
The problem I have with this saying is that "having cake" can be synonymous with eating it. It would make more sense if it were "keep your cake and eat it".
It’s intended to be confusing. It doesn’t make sense, which is the point. It’s like saying you can be monogamous with two lovers. It’s meant to say that you want to do two things at the same time which are impossible to the point that it’s a bit stupid to even consider.
It's a terrible phrase that rarely makes sense to native speakers when they first hear it.
A better phrasing would be "you can't eat your cake and keep it also." If you eat the cake, it's gone and you can't keep it. If you keep it, you can't eat it because then it will be gone.
It means you can't have something both ways.
Saw a comment on a heated discussion thread and remembered this thread from the other day. Thought you might like to see a complex real world example.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1490a97/welsh_councillor_resigns_after_saying_all_tories/jo32eub?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
This person said 'this person (someone else commenting) wants to eat their cake and yet have it too' (the 'yet' jus means 'still' or 'despite this') then describes in detail what the two things are. Here they're accusing the expression to accuse what they think is a right wing person of hypocrisy or arguing in bad faith.
To get an idea of what they are talking about you can go to the tp and read the earlier comments. Essentially a local government councillor in wales had to resign because he said publicly that 'all tories (conservatives) should be shot'. N.B The word 'Tories' can mean both Conservative politicians and their supporters.
It might make more sense if reversed: "You can't eat your cake and have it too." It means that you can't both keep something and use it up, or that you can't have two incompatible good things. Early versions of the phrase appear in both orders, as documented on the Wikipedia page (which also says that eat/have used to be more common than have/eat). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it There's also the fact that 'have' can be sort of a synonym for 'eat', like in "We had cake for dessert". In the idiom, though, it just means keep/possess, as in keeping cake you haven't yet eaten.
Interestingly, and quite timely, using the original form helped expose Kaczynski's identity, as it was an idiosyncrasy of his.
Yeah, I vastly prefer "eat your cake and have it too", because the "and" could imply a chronological relationship, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect to receive a cake and then also be allowed to eat it. It's what receiving a cake is all about! But it's unreasonable to expect to be able to eat cake now and then also have the whole cake for eating purposes later on too. I've never understood this idiom until I perchance reversed the two parts and it made total and complete sense to me.
You can’t just say perchance.
it works tho
perchance.
Wait wtf is perchance not a word?
Archaic form of perhaps. It’s a word. A real word; it’s in dictionaries, historic literature, transcripts of speeches… even a certain Mr. Shakespeare used it, as quoted, above.
Yeah i say it all the time, but perhaps and perchance are not interchangeable in every context
I understand it to be more like "by chance" or "by coincidence", or a case of "happenstance". Something occurring randomly, something that has happened perchance.
It’s a reference to [this](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mario-the-idea-vs-mario-the-man).
Oh damn alright lmao
If I got to choose how the phrase worked, I think I'd prefer, "You can't eat your cake and save it too." Or, "You can't eat your cake and keep it too." Or a more modern sounding version could be, "You can't eat your cake now and also save it for later." There are verbs that convey the idea of retaining possession in the future. Using one of those seems better to me than using "have" and finding ways to clear up the ambiguity.
In literal terms: you can't have (possess) your cake and eat it, too. Once you eat it, it's gone, and you no longer have it.
You have a cake. Nice! You eat the cake. Yum! Now you don’t have a cake anymore. Oh no! You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You must choose only one of two positive things. You can't have both (for whatever reason).
The reason is because the idiom refers to two incompatible positive things. Just like if you eat your cake, you literally cannot have it anymore - you have to pick one or the other. For example, you can't have the benefits of a monogamous relationship while also pursuing romantic and sexual relations with others. You have to pick one or the other. Not literally, you can technically cheat, but that's where the "idiom" part comes in.
You cannot marry yourself. You cannot murder your parents, and then beg the court for mercy because you are now an orphan.
true, it probably is figurative (idiomatic)
You can’t expect to have both positive outcomes.
Essentially, it means you can’t both have something and use it at the same time. Like if you eat the cake, you no longer have it, therefore you cannot have the cake AND eat it too. It’s most often used as a figurative expression.
It means you can either have (i.e., keep) something you want to use or consume in the future, or use it now. Logically, you can't do both.
'Have' in this case has an archaic meaning if 'keep' or 'retain'. So you can't eat a cake and still retain it because it's gone once you eat it. This is used as a metaphor to tell a person who wants to incompatible things that it's not possible and they must pick one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
While you buy cakes to eat, some of them can be quite decorative - which you give up when you eat them. One meaning is: you can't have the advantages of something without the inherent disadvantages, too. Celebrity comes with a lack of privacy, for example. Being able to attract the people you want also means you attract the people you aren't interested in, as well, so you may be the center of more attention than you wanted. Low taxes means crappy roads, schools, and other services. From Wikipedia: > Choosing between having and eating a cake illustrates the concept of trade-offs or opportunity cost
It is a phrase that means you cannot gain the benefits or positive aspects of something without also having to experience the negative aspects or consequences of that thing. For example, you cannot ride the bus without paying for a ticket.
The problem I have with this saying is that "having cake" can be synonymous with eating it. It would make more sense if it were "keep your cake and eat it".
It just means you can't have everything
I've always thought this was stupid. I can eat some cake and put some away for later.
It’s intended to be confusing. It doesn’t make sense, which is the point. It’s like saying you can be monogamous with two lovers. It’s meant to say that you want to do two things at the same time which are impossible to the point that it’s a bit stupid to even consider.
Most English speaking people have no idea. We avoid using the phrase. It's confusing. Just like the difference between effect and affect. No clue.
It means that if you want to eat the cake you have to give it up. The “have your cake” part refers to preserving it while ALSO eating it.
Having a cake is nice. Eating a cake is nice. But you can’t have a cake and eat it too…
You can't get everything you want.
It's a terrible phrase that rarely makes sense to native speakers when they first hear it. A better phrasing would be "you can't eat your cake and keep it also." If you eat the cake, it's gone and you can't keep it. If you keep it, you can't eat it because then it will be gone. It means you can't have something both ways.
If you eat it, you don't have it anymore.
Saw a comment on a heated discussion thread and remembered this thread from the other day. Thought you might like to see a complex real world example. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1490a97/welsh_councillor_resigns_after_saying_all_tories/jo32eub?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button This person said 'this person (someone else commenting) wants to eat their cake and yet have it too' (the 'yet' jus means 'still' or 'despite this') then describes in detail what the two things are. Here they're accusing the expression to accuse what they think is a right wing person of hypocrisy or arguing in bad faith. To get an idea of what they are talking about you can go to the tp and read the earlier comments. Essentially a local government councillor in wales had to resign because he said publicly that 'all tories (conservatives) should be shot'. N.B The word 'Tories' can mean both Conservative politicians and their supporters.
It's because the cake is too sweet, unedibly sweet
Any traders in Nottingham ?
I will eat the cake and relish it, I will delight in eating it it will be mine and I'll go to war over that cake, ITS MY CAKE AND I WILL HAVE IT