| English linguistics [message #215383] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:44 |
|
Hi all,
Today I was wondering about the expression "You can't have your cake
and eat it too". Where does it come from? I mean, you can't eat a cake
you don't have, and what's the use of having a cake if you can't eat
it? It is all really unsatisfying. And I don't even like cake. Please
enlighten me.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215384 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:57 |
|
In article <44euodF1t6emU1 [at] individual.net>, Taemon [at] zonnet.nl says...
> Hi all,
>
> Today I was wondering about the expression "You can't have your cake
> and eat it too". Where does it come from? I mean, you can't eat a cake
> you don't have, and what's the use of having a cake if you can't eat
> it? It is all really unsatisfying. And I don't even like cake. Please
> enlighten me.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/7/messages/470.html
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-hav2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_one's_cake_and_eat_it_too
--
Tar-Elenion
He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215385 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 19:10 |
|
Tar-Elenion wrote:
> In article <44euodF1t6emU1 [at] individual.net>, Taemon [at] zonnet.nl
> says...
>> Today I was wondering about the expression "You can't have your
>> cake and eat it too". Where does it come from? I mean, you can't
>> eat a cake you don't have, and what's the use of having a cake
>> if you can't eat it? It is all really unsatisfying. And I don't
>> even like cake. Please enlighten me.
> http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/7/messages/470.html
> http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-hav2.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_one's_cake_and_eat_it_too
"...and still have it!" Now I understand. Thanks. I wonder how long
this thread will go on.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215386 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 20:51 |
|
Taemon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I was wondering about the expression "You can't have your cake
> and eat it too". Where does it come from? I mean, you can't eat a cake
> you don't have, and what's the use of having a cake if you can't eat
> it? It is all really unsatisfying. And I don't even like cake. Please
> enlighten me.
>
> T.
>
>
Even though your question has been answered, you may have a similar one
in the future. English is extremely idiomatic and can lead to no end of
confusion - even for "native" speakers who can be from widely diverse
backgrounds.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/
Is a link to one of many sites containing Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase
& Fable. It's an invaluable resource for explaining idiomatic English.
Example: "Well, doesn't that just take the cake?" really means a
surprising or unexpected outcome, possibly not well-received. The phrase
has no connection whatever with the "cake" of your question.
Pete H
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215388 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 21:16 |
|
In message <news:44f09oF1rukhU1 [at] individual.net> "Taemon"
<Taemon [at] zonnet.nl> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> "...and still have it!" Now I understand. Thanks. I wonder how
> long this thread will go on.
In a (dare I say traditional <G>) attempt to usurp any linguistic
thread for the Scandinavian languages, I will just add that the
corresponding Danish adage states that you cannot both blow and have
flour in the mouth.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
- /Small Gods/ (Terry Pratchett)
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215389 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:35 |
|
pmhilton wrote:
> Even though your question has been answered, you may have a
> similar one in the future.
Hardly ever. I read a lot. And if it occurs, I end up here :-)
> http://www.bartleby.com/81/
What a wonderful link! Thank you. I bookmarked it.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215390 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:38 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message <news:44f09oF1rukhU1 [at] individual.net> "Taemon"
> <Taemon [at] zonnet.nl> enriched us with:
>> "...and still have it!" Now I understand. Thanks. I wonder how
>> long this thread will go on.
> In a (dare I say traditional <G>) attempt to usurp any linguistic
> thread for the Scandinavian languages,
THAT was quick.
> I will just add that the
> corresponding Danish adage states that you cannot both blow and
> have flour in the mouth.
We say "je kunt niet van twee walletjes eten", literally "you can't
eat from two walletjes at the same time". Walletjes? Quay, wharf,
something like that. Now that I think of it, I don't have any idea
where that came from.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215391 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:45 |
|
Taemon wrote:
> pmhilton wrote:
>
>
>>Even though your question has been answered, you may have a
>>similar one in the future.
>
>
> Hardly ever. I read a lot. And if it occurs, I end up here :-)
>
>
>>http://www.bartleby.com/81/
>
>
> What a wonderful link! Thank you. I bookmarked it.
>
> T.
>
>
Thanks for thanking me. And I, too, read a lot; that's one reason I have
a copy of Brewer's within arm's reach. Even with a B.A. in English & a
voracious appetite for books I'm forever turning up new questions.
Pete
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215398 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 07:02 |
|
Taemon wrote:
> Today I was wondering about the expression "You can't have your cake
> and eat it too". Where does it come from? I mean, you can't eat a cake
> you don't have, and what's the use of having a cake if you can't eat
> it? It is all really unsatisfying.
It literally means that you cannot both (a) save your cake for later
and (b) eat it now. However, you do have some other options:
(c) throw it away (d) give it to the dog (e) bury it in the groud,
hoping it will sprout a sugar-plum tree.
> And I don't even like cake.
This is a good thing, if you don't subcsribe to the Marie Antoinette
school of subsistance nutrition.
Sean Q
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215435 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 20:56 |
|
Sean wrote:
> Taemon wrote:
>
> > Today I was wondering about the expression "You can't have your cake
> > and eat it too". Where does it come from? I mean, you can't eat a cake
> > you don't have, and what's the use of having a cake if you can't eat
> > it? It is all really unsatisfying.
>
> It literally means that you cannot both (a) save your cake for later
> and (b) eat it now. However, you do have some other options:
> (c) throw it away (d) give it to the dog (e) bury it in the groud,
> hoping it will sprout a sugar-plum tree.
>
Actually, the original and proper form of it is: "you can't eat your
cake and have it too."
Of course you can HAVE your cake, and THEN eat it. Somehow the mistaken
form became pretty much the standard somewhere along the line. You
folks can help turn that around...
-BC
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215464 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 03:05 |
|
BC wrote:
>
>
> Actually, the original and proper form of it is: "you can't eat your
> cake and have it too."
I would suggest this is being just a bit prim with idiomatic usage. A
great many idioms are expressed in a variety of similar phrasings; to
insist that a particular phrase is "the original and proper" form is
unneccessary and, given the volatility of idioms, unprovable except an a
hanful of cases. Using Brewer's, and even the august OED, this case is
one of the unproven.
Pete H
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #215472 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 14:06 |
|
pmhilton schreef:
> BC wrote:
> >
> > Actually, the original and proper form of it is: "you can't eat your
> > cake and have it too."
>
> I would suggest this is being just a bit prim with idiomatic usage. A
> great many idioms are expressed in a variety of similar phrasings; to
> insist that a particular phrase is "the original and proper" form is
> unneccessary and, given the volatility of idioms, unprovable except an a
> hanful of cases. Using Brewer's, and even the august OED, this case is
> one of the unproven.
>
My heirloom 1895 English-Dutch dictionary says the expression is: 'One
can't both have one's cake and eat it' which is translated in old Dutch
by 'Men kan geen vijf pooten aan een schaap begeeren' meaning one can't
want a sheep to have five legs.
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #224366 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 13:11 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In a (dare I say traditional <G>) attempt to usurp any linguistic
> thread for the Scandinavian languages, I will just add that the
> corresponding Danish adage states that you cannot both blow and have
> flour in the mouth.
that's interesting; for once weejun is different. we say "Du kan ikkje
få i både pose og sekk" -- you can't get something both in a sack and a bag.
of curse, if the thing in question is CHOKLIT, you won't be allowed to
put it away into anything. CHOKLIT belongs in a tummy.
tamf
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #224372 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 15:23 |
|
In message <news:45bbb0F5s3roU1 [at] individual.net> Tamf Moo
<liddlelellow [at] yahoo.com> enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
[...]
>> the corresponding Danish adage states that you cannot both blow
>> and have flour in the mouth.
>
> that's interesting; for once weejun is different. we say "Du kan
> ikkje få i både pose og sekk" -- you can't get something both in a
> sack and a bag.
That is also used in Denmark, though apparently with a slightly
different meaning. Usually this is used without the negatation: "du
får/du vil have i både pose og sæk" (you get/want to get in both back
and sack) about somebody who wants to, or actually does, receive more
than his fair due.
> of curse, if the thing in question is CHOKLIT, you won't be
> allowed to put it away into anything. CHOKLIT belongs in a tummy.
CHOKLIT should be stored in McDuck-ian CHOCKLIT Bins on easily
defensible hill-tops -- if one has in both bag and sack (i.e. more
than can be easily consumed in a couple of hours), and wants to
protect one's property against the villainous Beagle Boys (or should
that be TEUNC boys?)
;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Men, said the Devil,
are good to their brothers:
they don't want to mend
their own ways, but each other's.
- Piet Hein, /Mankind/
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistics [message #224373 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 15:39 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> protect one's property against the villainous Beagle Boys
You Europeans know from the infamous Beagle Boys? Neeet!!!
Pete H
|
|
|
