you can't have your cake and eat it.

Link: => statatheustat.nnmcloud.ru/d?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzY6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZG93bmxvYWRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MzU6IllvdSBjYW4gdCBlYXQgeW91ciBjYWtlIGFuZCBoYXZlIGl0Ijt9


You can't have your cake and eat it means you want two things that are incompatible and that therefore you can't have at the same time. You can't have both sheep and the money. Most notoriously, a young Theodore J.

From Wise Words and Wives' Tales: The Origins, Meanings and Time-Honored Wisdom of Proverbs and Folk Sayings Olde and New by Stuart Flexner and Doris Flexner Avon Books, New York, 1993. For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our , and if you can''t find the answer there, please. The meaning of many mediaeval proverbs isn't clear - they depend on context and a knowledge of the use of language that is now difficult to decipher.

'You can't have your cake and eat it'

You cannot eat your cake and have it, too. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. A brief Google search suggests the second option is common usage though I would argue misusage. There is absolutely no difference in meaning between the two orderings: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too You cannot eat your cake and have it, too The meaning is simply that the cake cannot be both eaten and saved for later. The two options are mutually exclusive. Neither are misworded, misordered or misused. Both are correct; the second way more common and methinks more euphonious option has exactly the same meaning as the first, being that you cannot own the cake and get any use out of it as well. It's the same with money, for instance. The only thing that bothers me about this phrase is that it can be ambiguous to put have and cake so close together, since colloquially have cake is synonymous with eat cake. The irony of the idiom is that one would expect to be able to eat the cake that he or she owned. In that case, possession of the cake would logically come before usage of the cake: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Alternatively, the two verbs can be understood to represent a sequence of actions, so one can indeed have one's cake and then eat it. The phrase can be used with either order; it doesn't change the meaning, namely that once you've chewed and digested the cake, it has ceased to exist in any meaningful fashion, so you no longer have as in own or possess it. The ambiguity of the word have which can also mean eat just adds a twist of humor of the kind. It's obviously You cannot eat your cake and have it, not the you can t eat your cake and have it way around. Because you can have your cake, and then eat it; but not the other way around. While the phrase is not explicit about the first part preceding the second, it's one of the valid interpretations, so it sounds off if you claim you can't do X while you sort of can. If you keep it, you can't eat it; if you eat it, you can't keep it.

This can be emphasized by adding y la máquina de hacer chorizos — and the machine to make sausage. It's not an insult though, it just doesn't have a good connotation. Looking at the phrase You can't have your cake and eat it too through this lens does make it seem incorrect. If I and others were to win that battle we could change the article to reflect the common usage but until such time we should reflect the common usage. Kiezen of delen means that one party divides delen something, and the other party chooses kiezen which part they want. Alternatively, the two verbs can be understood to represent a sequence of actions, so one can indeed have one's cake and then eat it. It is, after all, physically impossible to ride a bike and drive a car at the same time.