I just had an hour long, very intense conversation about the phrase "Have your cake and eat it too".
At one point, I called Jon a jerk-off. Yes, it was that intense.
If you're bored and somewhat nerdy, enjoy:
5:02 AM me: i hate it when people use the phrase "all but" like "it was all but over" 5:03 AM or it was all but the end of the whatever Jon: where did that come from? me: it makes no sense a wiki article im reading Jon: ahh me: if it's "all but over" then that means its everything except being over. which means it is not over but its almost always intended to mean "its over" 5:04 AM or like "i couldnt care less" and "I could care less" they mean the same thing, but "i could care less" makes no sense really because that means you DO care, to some extent Jon: yeah 5:05 AM me: which is the oppositve of what you're trying to convey those types of phrases piss me off they just make no sense Jon: like eat your cake and have it too 5:06 AM that one always gets misquoted as have your cake and eat it too 5:08 AM that one bugs me, but only slightly me: lol we've had discussion about that its not incorrect theres no indication of order in that phrase 5:09 AM "alluding to the impossibility of eating your cake and still having it afterwards" me: theres no indication of order if it was "THEN" instead of "AND" then i'd be with you Jon: meh, it's subtle 5:10 AM me: but its and, meaning both occur so like the eating and the having both happen and if you eat it, then you dont have it also you HAD it, but you dont HAVE it Jon: but that's not the intent of the phrase not doing both one makes the other impossible 5:11 AM once you've eaten your cake it's gone there is no having me:
isnt that the point of it though, that you want to have your cake to
look at because its pretty and you want to eat it because its tasty,
and you cannot to both, so you cannot eat your cake and have it too do both* Jon: i agree that the meaning of the phrase isn't completly lost 5:12 AM me: no, nothing is lost it means the exact same Jon: i really don't think so me: its presented in a slightly more confusing manner, but it doesnt indicate eating THEN having, it just says both 5:13 AM Jon: it's not a simple (A & B) = (B & A) type thing me:
like in an ideal situation, you'll eat the cake, and then after you're
done eating it you'll have it also, to look at. but that's impossible
and thats the point of the quote that you cannot have the best of both worlds you have to choose one or the other, rigth? 5:14 AM Jon: yes 5:15 AM but it's not presented as a choice me: so, in 10 minutes after eating you cant have both the eating or having, its mutually exclusive right? 5:16 AM Jon: no, it's not intended to be a choice scenerio me: you get "eating" or "having", you cannot have both Jon: it's intended to highlight the impossibility of both you can have cake and eat it me: explain that to me Jon: but you can't eat cake then have it 5:17 AM the phrase is supposed to come across as once you've had something there's no having it in the future cause it's gone 5:18 AM me: wait, im missing something here lets replace the word 'have' with anoter word because i think there is a little confusion due to that like possess 5:19 AM i want to posess the cake and have eaten it simultaneously, which is impossible right? Jon: yes me: so i cannot possess and eat the cake Jon: no 5:20 AM me: likewise, i cannot eat and possess the cake Jon: it's not that simple perhaps if you change possess to something like maintain or not change then yes 5:21 AM possibly i could agree with where you're trying to go with this but have is a weaker word and the order that it is introduced can sway the interpretation of the phrase me: okay, if you want to preserve the cake and eat it does that work? Jon: or dilute it me: preserve? 5:22 AM Jon: yeah that'd work for me me: i agree the the order or presentation does affect the strength of the quote, but it doesnt change its meaning Jon: well, not it's intent 5:23 AM people have come to accept the bastardization me: no, the sentence can still be deconstructed to figure out its original meaning thus the meaning has not been lost 5:24 AM its not presetnted in as effective of a way, i'll admit, but it is not lost Jon: okay... let me spell it out this way i can hold on to a cake in my hands and eat it that is to say have a cake and eat it too have in this sense is tied to the action at hand me: no, thats not what "have" means in that sentence you're changing the meaning of "have" 5:25 AM Jon: that's not what is intended but it's a legitimate reading of the phrase me: "have" means to preserve in this case no its not, then the phrase is meaningless Jon: if the order is reversed to it's correct way the doubt is moot 5:26 AM me:
no its not, you could still interpret the "have" in your version to
mean the same as you're assuming people will think it is in my version Jon: i'm not assuming that they will my whole point in the first place was saying that people misqoute it me:
if you heard the phrase my way, and assumed the 'have' ment 'to have
for that moment until you eat it', then the phrase means nothing,
because to eat something you BY DEFINITION have to 'have' it Jon: the phrase originated in the form i'm talking about 5:27 AM it got switched around me: so the phrase means nothing but one is not a bastadization, its the same phrase Jon: and though the meaning isn't completly lost me: nothing is lost at all Jon: ACK! \m/ 5:28 AM me:
if i assume the 'have' means 'just to have temporarily in my hands
until i eat it' then the phrase has no meaning, do you agree? Jon: yes me: okay let me talk Jon: which is why it makes no sense to phrase it that way 5:29 AM me: so it only makes sense to assume that 'have' in this sentence means 'to preserve for a long period of time' so unless you're an idiot, nothing is lost at all 5:30 AM putting
'eat' before 'have' does make it easier to infer that 'have' means
'preserve', but its still easy to infer it the other way 5:31 AM Jon:
i'm arguing two things here: one is that people misquote the original
phrase and the second is that the phrase makes more sense and is less
ambiguous if it is in it's original form. i feel like you're giving me neither i'm not arguing that the phrase doesn't make sense the way you're saying it 5:32 AM or that people misread it or misinterpret it cause it's obvious people who use the quote get it's intent 5:33 AM and it's easy for the lay person to get the intent of the misquote but it's still misquoted me: okay, i see, heres my thoughts okay,
1: the way the original quote was stated really doesnt matter because
the quoter wasnt famous and the original quote was actually "wolde you
bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?" so NO ONE actually says the
original quote. You're defining 'original' to be what you think is
original or what is original "enough" or some BS
2. it is slightly less ambiguous, yes. the amount by which is is less ambiguous is negligable. 5:34 AM Jon: 1 - fair point 2 - agreed me: so I win? :D Jon: no me: lol Jon: but i have a feeling you feel that way regardless me: gimme a refutation 5:35 AM Jon: for which? me: i dunno, you said you agreed with the second 5:36 AM and i dont think the first is what bothers you Jon: 2 just has to do with my pickyness with words - it's just imprecise so i don't like it me: its not imprecise, its just less obvious and only slightly more so 5:37 AM Jon: alright, if not a question of precision then accuracy 5:38 AM me:
i mean can you honestly envision a scenario where a person would take
'have' to mean 'to posess for a second until it is eaten'? Because then
they'd be assuming that you cannot temporarily own cake that you eat,
and that would be impossible or something? i mean it just doesnt make sense Jon: and 1 only bugs me when people try and use the quote in a smug "i can quote smart things" kind of way me: lol 5:39 AM Jon: and they get it wrong 5:40 AM me:
i mean you're saying something along the lines of "this english
translation of the bible is correct and this other english translation
is wrong". They are both "wrong", the original hebrew/greek/whatever
version is the right one, and its bizarre to pick and choose Jon: no it's like misquoting shakespeare - or a line from a speech 5:41 AM sure you get the point across but it's not the quote me: no its not because the original is that ridiculous english version that no one would ever say Jon: it might not be functionally important - but still me: your version is just a bastardization of that version Jon: but the order is important and reversing it weakens the quote 5:42 AM me: it is slightly important, yes Jon: not destroys but weakens me: i agree on both points it does weaken but only slightly Jon: i'm happy with that me: so slightly its negligable Jon: and i'm happy to agree that it's slight me: and negligable = 0 in engineer land 5:43 AM Jon: but i disagree that it's negligible - but i agree that it's forgivable me: i mean if one people out of a thousand mistakes the meaning because of that, i'd say its negligable Jon: so yes ~= 0 in the limit as n -> supid me: so.. ~=0 = meaning not lost? or weakened 5:44 AM Jon: = 0 meaning not lost i will not concede weakened :P 5:45 AM me: lol okay, so basically you're irritated because the phrase is slightly weakened Jon: yep me: and they could of used a stronger version Jon: and the smugness me: and are therefore asshats 5:46 AM Jon: yes me:
what about social pressures, though? "have your cake and eat it too" is
common usage. If you flip it you might upset someone or someone might
call you out on it Jon: like you me: and if you just want to convey the meaning, theres no reason to go againts the grain Jon: and then i would have to sit them down and explain to them why they're wrong or not "correct" 5:47 AM this is not wikiquote me: they may fully understand your POV, but if I was giving a speech, id use my version, because it sits better and is smooth to listen to because its the common usage Jon: blegh - play to the masses me: I wouldnt want to break the smoothness of a speech by quoting that phrase in a technically correct manner 5:48 AM Jon: that's like saying you don't mind something being wrong if it's easier to hear or listen to me: no, its not wrong 5:49 AM if
everyone in the world started using the word 'blarg' instead of 'cat',
no meaning is lost and you're just being archaic because you are all
attached to 'cat' for some reason language is an appeal to the masses Jon: again with the shakespeare thing me: that phrase has tracended beyond being a regular sentence and is a cliche, and is therefore not subject to grammar rules right, but this is a cliche 5:50 AM the phrase in my order is the cliche in your order, still has the same meaning but is no longer a cliche so if you're going to do that, you should no use cake Jon: they two are not the same they are similar me: .. no meaning is lost you said that yourself Jon: the two are not the same, they are similar* 5:51 AM well i'm not sure if i used those exact words but what i mean to say me: look, when you use a cliche, you have to use it in its cliche form, or you should not use it 5:52 AM you sound like a jerk off if you start changing cliches for no reason Jon: is that the intent of the quote is not lost i'm not being a jerk off - i'm the one quoting it correctly me: no the correct quote is my version because it is in common usage Jon: no 5:53 AM me: well you should probably start saying "thou" instead of "you" from now on since thats the correct word, going by your definition Jon: no thou and you have the same function me: exactly but thou was there first 5:54 AM Jon: that's not the whole point of the argument thoough thou does not convey anything different than does the word you 5:55 AM like a and an me:
the whole point of being a cliche though is that no one HAS to
interpret the meaning because everyone has heard it enough times in
enough contexts that they just know what it means. You're trying to
alter a cliche for grammatical reasons that matter to no one Jon: it's just happens that a is right in some circumstances and an is right in others 5:56 AM what if i started writing my sentences with all *an*s instead of *a*s 5:57 AM would it be wrong? me: yes? Jon: and if so, only because it's the convention to do so? me: yes Jon: fuck the convention man the fallacy of the majority me: LOL language is all about the majority Jon: just because we all agree doesn't mean we're right 5:58 AM me: beacuse its prime purpose is to communicate if we all just spoke whatever the hell we wanted we couldnt communicate thats why language has rules Jon: and if we allow language to be as fluid as you propose then we run the risk of imprecision me: no we dont Jon: yes we do me: give me an example 5:59 AM Jon: if i said something was bad before 1980 people would know that was certainly something undesirable or at least negative now it's ambiguous or potentially so same with cool 6:00 AM as we attach more and more meanings to words we take away their precision me: no its not, its context based, just like the word 'have' which has 20 definitions Jon: alright - stop there and let me make my point 6:01 AM since
have has all those variations, it has to establish its meaning and the
phase we're talking about doesn't establish it's own context it relies
on it's status as a cliche 6:02 AM in the form i prefer it's context is preserved without relying on cliche it's self containted me: okay, i see your point now let me make a point 6:03 AM the
context is 95% preserved or whatever in my version. There are very few
people who have not been exposed to the phrase, and the ones who havent
overwhelmingly figure out the meaning of the phrase in the way intended. 6:04 AM so, there is no reason to flip it back around, although it is more clear because everyone knows and understands the cliche in my version and someone newly presented to the cliche will figure it out just the same 6:05 AM Jon: i'm not advocating a revolution, just trying to preserve the integrity of a powerful phrase me: so flipping it around does have a slight gain in clairity, but a large loss in smoothness of presentation Jon: only smooth because it's the way most people hear it now me: yes Jon: no argument there 6:06 AM me: and undoubtedly the way it'll be spoken for a long time Jon: which makes me sad see ---> :( 6:07 AM me:
its like driving a manual transmission car: you give up a lot of ease
of use for a few measily percentage points in performance most people buy automatic cars Jon: but the margins are where the gains live me: some people like to pretend to be racecar drivers and buy manuals you're pretending you're a racecar driver, jon you're not. 6:08 AM Jon: you're driving a corolla a dingy one at that me: i'd argue that you're actually going to sway less people by using it your way than my way Jon: i'm kind of growing weary of this topic, tbh me:
if you use it your way, people are going to think "wait, isnt it the
other way? does it matter? huh, thats weird" and then you've already
spoken another few sentences that they didnt hear 6:09 AM Jon: i think we're agreeing in all the right places and all the important places me: okay, just give me a rebuttal to my last statement 6:10 AM Jon: i don't like to speak to people expecting them to be dumb or ignorant, i would rather elevate language than muddy it up that being said there's a time and a place and you have to know your audience 6:11 AM big fancy words don't equal smartness and can equal smugness but i don't like being told to revert to convention me: correcting cliches doesnt equal smartness and can equal smugness, I think 6:12 AM its like being a grammar nazi Jon: i understand and agree for the most part it's just something that irks me not in a big way but still me: yeah so anyways Jon: like i could care less and i couldn't care less 6:13 AM people use them interchangeably and take them for their correct meaning but still it's annoying me: yeah, but one doesnt convey its original meaning, infact it conveys the exact opposite and the cake thing does convey its original meaning, although slightly less clearly Jon: i agree it's a bigger discrepancy - or at least a more obvious one 6:14 AM but again, it's convention so why bitch? me: im not saying just conform, but i feel like im point out a gaping hole and you're nitpicking 6:15 AM mine is conveying the exact opposite, the cake thing is conveying about the same Jon: again, no argument just saying it's convention, so why bitch? people get the intended effect me:
so the cake thing has a 95% meaning retention, and the couldnt has like
a 0% meaning retention. so im irked about 100% and you're irked about
5% so i dont think its comprable 6:16 AM Jon: alright but 100% of people get both so why do we even bother me: intellectual curiosity 6:17 AM Jon: and that's about it
| 
