I was taking it to refer to just some amount of possessed cake regardless of its subdivisions, It doesnt strike me as odd to refer to food that way (same as how, if I made you a bunch of french fries, it wouldn’t be terribly unusual for me to ask “do you like it?” while referring to the meal, despite it being made up of many individual units).
We flip idioms all the time. Head-over-heels is another one, used to be the other way around. I suspect it’s a subconscious thing as both moved the long e sound to the end and we prefer vowel sounds in particular orders and rhythms.
I suspect the cause is that the the layperson couldn’t wrap their head around the original version (because it’s supposed to be a paradox) and ended up switching it around to “make sense”
But you can’t have cake and eat it too.
I mean, you absolutely can, you just have to make two cakes
it refers to the one cake. “You can’t have a cake and eat another one” would be yours.
But I like your attitude! Can you make me two cakes? I’m totally not going to eat both of them (I am but don’t tell anyone)
I was taking it to refer to just some amount of possessed cake regardless of its subdivisions, It doesnt strike me as odd to refer to food that way (same as how, if I made you a bunch of french fries, it wouldn’t be terribly unusual for me to ask “do you like it?” while referring to the meal, despite it being made up of many individual units).
True, without article (the or a), your reading totally makes sense
Two cakes? Not with this egg shortage.
deleted by creator
You can’t eat your cake and have it too.
This is the original, better version
I’ve never understood it the other way around, you definitionally have to have your cake to eat it.
What one wants to do is eat the cake and then still have it…
We flip idioms all the time. Head-over-heels is another one, used to be the other way around. I suspect it’s a subconscious thing as both moved the long e sound to the end and we prefer vowel sounds in particular orders and rhythms.
I suspect the cause is that the the layperson couldn’t wrap their head around the original version (because it’s supposed to be a paradox) and ended up switching it around to “make sense”
What if I just take a bite?
I’ll allow it
I have never understood this saying.
you can’t have your thing if you also eat it (it will be gone inside of you)
But if it’s yours, didn’t you have it?
but it isn’t the thing anymore. so no, it is now something different, while soon to become a poop
Okay. Got it. Thanks!