SecondPrize said:
KeyMaster45 said:
SecondPrize said:
KeyMaster45 said:
I've never under stood the "you can't have your cake and eat it too" saying. If I have a piece of cake, then why can't I eat it? It's already been cut from the whole and given to me obviously with the intention that I eat it. If you're unable to eat cake for some reason, then what demented bastard would even give you a piece in the first place? Other than that situation it is very seldom that someone has cake and does not eat it. In fact, I think I'm going to go get one of those cheap Wal-Mart cakes and have a slice when I get it home. I will have my cake and I will eat it. Not all at once mind you, but over the next I will eat the rest.
OP should consider changing their thread title as having cake and not eating it simply doesn't make sense.
On the off chance you genuinely do not understand this, when you finish eating your cake, will you still have it? No.
Nothing lasts forever. I still had my cake, and then I got to eat it; therefore I had my cake and ate it too. That it's gone after I've eaten it is only the natural progression of things.
That is very true. However, the saying is not had your cake and ate it too. The tense is the important bit here.
Exactly, the tense is important. If I have a cake sitting in front of me, then there is very little that can stop me from having a piece. After that piece I still have more cake. In all the tenses; past, present, and future, I can have my cake and eat it too.
I will have cake and I will eat it.
I have cake and now I get too eat it.
I had cake and got too eat it.
The logic is rock solid; the phrase simply makes no sense.
