Liliputin-3918

Only I can have a girlfriend and eat it too ... "
Hannibal Lecter

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't have your cake and eat it (too) is a popular English idiomatic proverb or figure of speech. The proverb literally means "you cannot simultaneously retain your cake and eat it". Once the cake is eaten, it is gone. It can be used to say that one cannot have two incompatible things, or that one should not try to have more than is reasonable. The proverb's meaning is similar to the phrases "you can't have it both ways" and "you can't have the best of both worlds."

For those unfamiliar with it, the proverb may sound confusing due to the ambiguity of the word 'have', which can mean 'keep' or 'to have in one's possession', but which can also be used as a synonym for 'eat' (e.g. 'to have breakfast'). Some find the common form of the proverb to be incorrect or illogical and instead prefer: "You can't eat your cake and [then still] have it (too)". Indeed, this used to be the most common form of the expression until the 1930s–1940s, when it was overtaken by the have-eat variant. Another, less common, version uses 'keep' instead of 'have'.

Choosing between having or eating a cake illustrates the concept of trade-offs or opportunity cost.

History and usage
An early recording of the phrase is in a letter on 14 March 1538 from Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, to Thomas Cromwell, as "a man can not have his cake and eat his cake". The phrase occurs with the clauses reversed in John Heywood's A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue from 1546, as "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?". In John Davies's Scourge of Folly of 1611, the same order is used, as "A man cannot eat his cake and haue it stil."

In Jonathan Swift's 1738 farce "Polite Conversation", the character Lady Answerall says "she cannot eat her cake and have her cake". The order was reversed in a posthumous adaptation of "Polite Conversation" in 1749 called "Tittle Tattle; or, Taste A-la-Mode", as "And she cannot have her Cake and eat her Cake". A modern-sounding variant from 1812, "We cannot have our cake and eat it too", can be found in R. C. Knopf's Document Transcriptions of the War of 1812 (1959).

According to Google Ngram Viewer, a search engine that charts the frequencies of phrases throughout the decades, the eat-have order used to be the most common variant (at least in written form) before being surpassed by the have-eat version in the 1930s and 40s.

In 1996, the eat-have variant played a role in the apprehension of the Unabomber, whose real name is Ted Kaczynski. In his manifesto, which the terrorist sent to newspapers in the wake of his bombings, Kaczynski advocated the undoing of the industrial revolution, writing: "As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society — well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too." James R. Fitzgerald, an FBI forensic linguist, noted this (then) uncommon variant of the proverb and later discovered that Kaczynski had also used it in a letter to his mother. This, among other clues, led to his identification and arrest.

In her 2002 book, classicist Katharina Volk of Columbia University used the phrase to describe the development of poetic imagery in didactic Latin poetry, naming the principle behind the imagery's adoption and application the "have-one's-cake-and-eat-it-too principle".

Logicality
The proverb, while commonly used, is at times questioned by people who feel the expression to be illogical or incorrect. As comedian Billy Connolly once put it: "What good is [having] a cake if you can't eat it?"[20] According to Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, the confusion about the idiom stems from the verb to have, which can refer to possessing, but also to eating, e.g. "Let's have breakfast" or "I'm having a sandwich". Brians argues that "You can't eat your cake and have it too" is a more logical variant than "You can't have your cake and eat it too", because the verb-order of "eat-have" makes more sense: once you've eaten your cake, you don't have it anymore.

Ben Zimmer, writing for the Language Log of the University of Pennsylvania, states that the interpretation of the two variants relies on the assumption of either sequentiality or simultaneity. If one believes the phrase to imply sequentiality, then the "eat-have" variant could be seen as a more logical form: you cannot eat your cake and then (still) have it, but you actually can have your cake and then eat it. The former phrase would demonstrate an impossibility better, while the latter phrase is more of a statement of fact, arguably making it less suitable as an idiomatic proverb. However, if one believes the "and" conjoining the verbs to imply simultaneity of action rather than sequentiality of action, then both versions are usable as an idiom, because "cake-eating and cake-having are mutually exclusive activities, regardless of the syntactic ordering", Zimmer writes.

In response, Richard Mason disagreed with Zimmer's assertion on the mutually exclusiveness of the two actions: "simultaneous cake-having and cake-eating are NOT mutually exclusive. On the contrary, generally I cannot eat something at any time when I do not have it. But I eat things when I have them all the time. Only when the object is entirely consumed do I no longer have it (and at that time the eating is also terminated)." Therefore, Mason considers the "have-eat" variant to be "logically indefensible". Zimmer reacted to Mason by stating: "the 'having' part of the idiom seems to me to imply possession over a long period of time, rather than the transient cake-having that occurs during cake-eating". He concludes that it is ultimately not relevant to ponder over the logicality of crystallized, commonly used phrases. "Few people protest the expression head over heels to mean 'topsy-turvy,' despite the fact that its "literal" reading describes a normal, non-topsy-turvy bodily alignment".

Stan Carey, writing for the Macmillan Dictionary Blog, likens the "have-eat" vs. "eat-have" question with the discussion over "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less", two phrases that are used to refer to the same thing yet are construed differently, with the former sounding illogical because saying "I could care less" would mean that you actually do care to some degree. Carey writes that even though the "eat-have" form of the cake-proverb might make more sense, "idioms do not hinge on logic, and expecting them to make literal sense is futile. But it can be hard to ward off the instinctive wish that language align better with common sense." Carey jokingly states that the cake-idiom actually does have its cake and eats it.

***
German: Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mach mich nicht nass – Wash my fur but don't get me wet.

Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mach mich nicht nass

Als Motto Leuten in den Mund gelegt, die die Vorteile einer Sache gerne geniessen, aber nicht bereit sind, die damit verbundenen Nachteile in Kauf zu nehmen "Man kann nicht nach dem Motto verfahren: Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mach mich nicht nass!"; "'Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mach mich nicht nass!' Diese Baerenweisheit zeigt das Solidaritaetsproblem in der Gesellschaft und die Einstellung vieler Buerger auf. Auf der einen Seite stellen die Buerger haehere Anforderungen an den Staat. Auf der anderen Seite sind sie aber immer weniger dazu bereit, ihren Beitrag (z. B. in Form von Steuern) fuer die Realisierung ihrer Ziele zu leisten" Sprichwort; Das Sprichwort reicht bis ins Mittelalter zur;ck und hat seinen Ursprung in der Redensart "jemandem den Pelz waschen" mit der Bedeutung "jemandem derb zusetzen", die seit 1500 belegt ist. Den naechsten Bezug gibt es in den Geschichten des Till Eulenspiegel. Er soll von 1300 bis 1350 gelebt haben und ist die Titelgestalt eines deutschen Volksbuches, der von seinen Narrenstreichen handelt. Dabei soll er vorhandene Redensarten woertlich genommen und somit die Leute auf die Palme gebracht haben. Die 30. Historie handelt davon, wie Eulenspiegel Pelze seiner Gastgeberin und anderer Frauen in Milch kocht und damit so verdirbt, dass sie auseinanderfallen. Anschliessend macht er sich aus dem Staub. Das Sprichwort selbst soll Georg der Baertige (1471-1539) zuerst, und zwar tadelnd gegen den diplomatischen Erasmus von Rotterdam gebraucht haben:
Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mach mich nicht nass


Also, Man kann nicht auf zwei Hochzeiten tanzen – One cannot dance at two weddings (at the same time)

Russian: И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть – Wanting to eat a fish without first catching it from the waters. This is a euphemism for a common vulgar expression и рыбку съесть, и на *** сесть – Wanting to both eat a fish and to sit on a dick. This phrase was first used by Alexander Pushkin in a private letter.

Spanish: Querer estar en misa y en procesin – Wishing to be both at mass and in the procession. Also, Estar en misa y repicando (or Estar en misa y tocar la campana) – To be both at mass and in the bell tower, ringing the bells.
An alternative idiom in Spanish would be No se puede estar al plato y a las tajadas - You can't pay attention to the plate and to the slices.
Argentina: La chancha y los veinte. – The pig and the twenties. This comes from the old piggy banks for children that used to contain coins of 20 cents. The only way to get the coins was to break the piggy bank open – hence the phrase. This can be emphasized by adding y la mequina de hacer chorizos – and the machine to make sausage.

Ukrainian: На двох стільцях не всидиш – You can't sit on two chairs.