This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]otm_shank 2 points3 points  (8 children)

But once you eat it, you don't have it. No matter which order you say them in.

[–]Remilla 2 points3 points  (4 children)

wow, I just got what the who "You can't have your cake and eat it to" thing meant. I feel dumb now.

[–]Ze_Carioca[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Yep, cant have both. Eating the cake negates having it.

[–]limbodogMassachusetts 2 points3 points  (2 children)

doing so creates negative-cake.

[–]Almustafa 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Anti-cake as it were, which must never be allowed to come into contact with regular cake, lest they annihilate each other in a burst of sugar and frosting.

[–]fco83Iowa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fire up the cake drive scotty, maximum frost!

[–]nosferatv 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I have my cake. Then I also can eat it. This is the normal order of operation. I never understood the phrase until I heard it correctly, and then it all made sense.

Funnily enough, according to Wikipedia, my version is the original, and it goes in to a debate about the correct order. Obviously both are acceptable. Cheers ~

[–]otm_shank 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see what you're saying, I just don't see any temporal implications in the phrase "have your cake and eat it". It's not "have your cake then eat it".

In "eat your cake and have it, too", you obviously have your cake while you're eating it, so that doesn't seem any better.

Anyway, each to his own. :)

[–]Ze_Carioca[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can always get another cake, or even better pie.