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

message: Better modern translation. Rugz (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your cake is gone once you eat it 

message: Cake is perishable, so if you have your cake, rejoice. Eat your cake, leaves nothing.
If, it isn’t gone already? Should someone else find it!
While the fantasy sounds good, it is fleeting.
But if you come close, remember; “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
AmbiguousOne (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denotes a level of One's Greed or Frustration. 

message: This phrase is too common for the references to it in popular culture to be noteworthy. There are literally thousands of examples of the phrase in wider culture. Thus, it's inadvisable to have an "In popular culture" (aka "Trivia") section. If no one has any objections, I will delete it in a few days. ask123 (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: This is the most common way of expressing this in Australia. It also seems popular overseas. Which countries use "Have one's cake and eat it too" as opposed to the Australian version? I'd never heard it used with 'one' before. Ozdaren (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It should be changed. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have your cake and eat it (too) 

message: What is it? The article shouldn't be so demure. Imagine Reason (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard the version with the cream shopkeeper's smile. The most common version mentions her butt.--195.212.29.182 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The French "common slang" version 

message: Greek: Και την πίτα ολόκληρη και τον σκύλο χορτάτο - you want the pie whole and the dog full.
Is perhaps a direct translation, word for word, but when said "την πίτα ολόκληρη" it is referring to "the entire pita" not "the pie whole". 
MachinistJim (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The translation section 

message: Do not think 
Bulgarian: И вълкът сит, и агнето цяло – Both the wolf is full, and the lamb is whole.
and
Czech: Aby se vlk nažral a koza zůstala celá – The wolf is full and the goat stayed whole.
refer to the same phenomenon. Are these really used in the same negative context? I think those phrases, common inSlavic and Slavic influenced languages, are used in a positive context, i.e. when this state has been achieved: the wolf has been fed and yet the sheep are alive.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.232.152 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm deleting Czech which is closer to "keeping the letter of a rule without keeping its spirit". Example: a father lets his teenage son attend some party with the proviso that the latter mustn't drink beer - so the latter gets plastered with wine instead. "The wolf is full" (promise to father was kept) but "the goat stayed whole" (inebriation was achieved). --Droigheann (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic proverbs may have been misunderstood 

message: This article needs to be completely rewritten according to reliable sources, for example this, and this, and this. All personal opinions, prescriptivist nonsense, and other incorrect claims such as the following should be removed from an encyclopedia article: 
*"...incorrectly quoted English idiomatic proverb or figure of speech. The correct and thus logical version..." (the currently used form of a proverb is a proverb - it is not a "quote of an earlier version")
*"One can be in possession of one's cake, but is not allowed to eat it." ("allowed" is nonsense) 
The article should also be moved to Have your cake and eat it too or You can't have your cake and eat it too, which are correct and actually used (and most common) forms of this proverb. The less common forms with "his/her" etc. are implied, but the current article title is almost never used
--Espoo (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: It's not Economics, except in the sense that everything is economics.  The simple English (but not necessarily simple English) concept is trade-off.  I formatted X's comments correctly, but then replaced it with the correct link to trade-off.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the entry is specifically dedicated to the relationship between scarcity and choice...then the entry has to do with opportunity cost.  If you don't know about opportunity cost...then you don't know the first thing about economics.  Given that you clearly don't know about opportunity cost...it's painfully obvious that you don't know the first thing about economics.  Therefore, your contributions in areas concerning economics are so unhelpful that they are borderline vandalism.  Just because your edits are in "good faith" does in no way, shape or form diminish their destructive impact.  So please, if you're unwilling to make the effort to learn about economics, then stop editing things that have to do with economics.  --Xerographica (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  Given that you clearly don't understand the (claimed to be economic) term trade-off, and noting, generally, that if C is more closely related to B than to A, and if C is referenced in B, it should not be referenced in A, this should be gone.  I won't revert if you add it again, but I will tag as .  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics 

message: I don't understand why the argument is invalid  when the cake in question is expired.  If I can't have a fresh piece of cake and eat it, too, then it stands to reason that I can't have an expired piece of cake and eat it, too.
++++++++++===============+++++++++++
I grew up hearing some common colloquialisms but never having a proper understanding of them as I had no one to explain them to me.
I was left to fend more for myself in interpreting what I was hearing.  SO,this is ONLY my thoughts and not based on any historical
precedent.  Having my cake and eating it too was something that I have almost never actually associated with cake, nor for that matter,
with anything perishable.  In fact, to actually do both, I've assumed the cake is a "type" and really only a reference to that which is
clearly NOT cake.  That could very easily be manna or money.  The logical conclusion then (for me anyway) is that if you have both the 
cake AND the eating of it and make a declarative statement that "I AM going to have my cake and eat it too," you are essentially saying
you are going to have an endless supply of something.  You have a money tree, a cake factory, quail appearing out of rocks, etc.  I look
at it much more as a statement of optimism in that I'm going to experience a surplus of something rather than a negative that I can't have 
something.  I realize, again, that this has NOTHING to do with the original meaning.  Rather, it is the optimist's reply to it. 70.168.122.185 (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Argument is only valid when the cake is not expired?" 

message: I am sympathetic to whomever changed the opening sentence to “You can't eat your cake and KEEP it”.  I often use the phrase “you can’t eat your cake and have it too” hoping, (usually in vain) that someone will notice I’m not using the more common expression. I think the phrase you inserted in the phrase I use make much more sense. However, Wikipedia tends to be more descriptive than prescriptive, so we report what people say, even if it is incorrect. The phrases become an idiomatic phrase in such phrases often turn into something that doesn’t make literal sense but people tend to know what they mean. I wish I could convince people to use the correct expression but I know I’m fighting a losing battle. 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. The article does note the more sensible usage but it is not the most common usage so it is not appropriate to change the opening sentence which should match the title which should match the common usage.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "proper" order 

message: *  – You have to choose or divide. This is based on Dutch civil law where in a division of property one person divides the property in two parts and the other person chooses the part he likes most.
I am a native Dutch person, and I can tell you that Kiezen of delen (Choose or divide) is similar but not equal to "You can't have your cake and eat it". Kiezen of delen means that one party divides (delen) something, and the other party chooses (kiezen) which part they want. This way, the divider is forced to look at things from the chooser's perspective while dividing. This theoretically creates a situation in which neither party screws over the other. See Divide and choose, and nl:Kiezen of delen.
The text further claims that the principle is part of Dutch civil law. I don't know about that. If it is part of a law, then I don't think it's widely used. I've lived in the Netherlands all my live, and I have never heard of any occasion, business-wise or marital, in which Choose or divide was applied. Indeed, in practice, it isn't very useful, because certain goods or assets may be more valuable to one party than they are to the other. The only case I remember having encountered the principle in the Netherlands was in a Dutch pudding commercial, in which a mother of two happily announced that her young children were no longer quarreling over the delicious desert after implementing the Kiezen of delen method: one child cut the pudding, the other chooses one of the two parts.
I've added this Dutch proverb to the article: Van twee walletjes eten, literally "Eating from two banks" of a ditch, or a river. It's a negative saying which means that someone joins two opposing parties and manipulates the situation in such a way to get the most out of it. Examples are cheating and A Fistful of Dollars.
Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch variant 

message: I've changed this:
*  – choose or let choose.
to this:
* : There is no equivalent for this proverb in Papiamento, but a similar phrase is: Skohe of lag'i skohe – Choose or let choose.
If I'm wrong, feel free to correct/revert me. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papiamento variant 

message: Currently, the "In other languages" section contains the following text:
I'm pretty sure that meme is not, in fact, a language (and I'm also skeptical that Know Your Meme is a reliable source). Should this information be presented in some other way, or should we just delete it? --NYKevin  01:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be completely fine with it if you delete that bit. Thanks, Manifestation (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . --NYKevin  19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we really sure that "meme" is a language 

message: I have never heard the Finnish version. It sounds hacky and non-Finnish, like a third-rate translation of the original. It doesn't sound natural. I would remove it. 88.195.213.127 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish version 

message: It's a reference to Marie Antoinette in a way. "Let them eat cake." The French were poor and Louis took his share. Cake is the burnt bottom of the loaf. The royalty always gets the 'upper crust.' Food was rationed and so if you got your cake you would save it. Can't be fed today and hungry tomorrow if you can help it. The ohrase was made popular because of the peasant revolt. 2601:194:480:9630:51E7:A270:8814:31F (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's attested over 200 years before Marie Antoinette was born, so no. And she didn't say "Let them eat cake", either. --Macrakis (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't have your cake and eat it, too 

message: Write a story to illustrate the saying; you can't have your cake and eat it 197.215.24.12 (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear what you're asking for - do you mean you think the article should have an example of the phrase being used? There are a number of examples given in the citations. SamWilson989 (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English