![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Stupid Phraseology
Jul. 12th, 2002 05:06 amYou know that saying "You can't have your cake and eat it too" ? It's a very stupid phrase. I've been thinking about it, and I don't like it one bit. It's completely backwards, says exactly the opposite of what it ought to. Stay with me a moment here and think about it.
The saying supposes that if one has cake, one is unable to eat that same cake. This is, of course, nonsense. There is nothing in the world to say that I cannot eat a cake that I have, that is to say, a cake that is in my possession. Indeed, there would be a serious question, both morally and logistically to me eating a cake that I do not have. I suppose it could be an imaginary cake, or I could pounce on someone else's cake and devour it, but that would be rather mean of me, and rule out most of the situations we commonly like to consider "eating cake."
Say it's my birthday, and my roommate gives me a cake, cause she likes me. I put it on my desk. I have a cake. Would anyone like to take a stab at explaining why I cannot eat this cake that I have here?
The proper form of the phrase, of course, would be "You can't eat your cake and have it too." Once I take that cake and eat it and digest it thoroughly, all I'm left with is a plate and some fond memories. No more cake for me. (Assuming, of course, that the saying refers to entire cakes and not fractions of cakes. I could, for instance, eat only a piece of my cake and therefore you might consider me to be both eating and having the cake. To say nothing of the semantic difficulties involved in the invitation "Have a piece of cake," where the intention is obviously that the recipient eat it.)
I have mentioned this before to people, and they have laughed at me. And if I try to correct the phrase in general usage, people assume I'm trying to be clever rather than simply trying to make the same point everyone does when using that phrase. The trouble is that everyone else uses it wrong and no one seems to notice!
Okay, that's it, time out for me. I'm going to bed. Even if I have to hit myself in the head with a 2x4 to do it.
The saying supposes that if one has cake, one is unable to eat that same cake. This is, of course, nonsense. There is nothing in the world to say that I cannot eat a cake that I have, that is to say, a cake that is in my possession. Indeed, there would be a serious question, both morally and logistically to me eating a cake that I do not have. I suppose it could be an imaginary cake, or I could pounce on someone else's cake and devour it, but that would be rather mean of me, and rule out most of the situations we commonly like to consider "eating cake."
Say it's my birthday, and my roommate gives me a cake, cause she likes me. I put it on my desk. I have a cake. Would anyone like to take a stab at explaining why I cannot eat this cake that I have here?
The proper form of the phrase, of course, would be "You can't eat your cake and have it too." Once I take that cake and eat it and digest it thoroughly, all I'm left with is a plate and some fond memories. No more cake for me. (Assuming, of course, that the saying refers to entire cakes and not fractions of cakes. I could, for instance, eat only a piece of my cake and therefore you might consider me to be both eating and having the cake. To say nothing of the semantic difficulties involved in the invitation "Have a piece of cake," where the intention is obviously that the recipient eat it.)
I have mentioned this before to people, and they have laughed at me. And if I try to correct the phrase in general usage, people assume I'm trying to be clever rather than simply trying to make the same point everyone does when using that phrase. The trouble is that everyone else uses it wrong and no one seems to notice!
Okay, that's it, time out for me. I'm going to bed. Even if I have to hit myself in the head with a 2x4 to do it.
