Examples of Stupid Idioms
- Thread starter AnathemicOne
- Start date
LordRaptor
Member
Okay, I'm out.
Enjoy the tag you're fishing for.
For the record: The verb "To Have" in english always declines as
I have
You have
He/She/It has
We have
You have
They have
In this tense, the verb "to have" always means possession.
"I have cake" does not mean "I am eating cake"
Never did, never will.
If you're sticking an auxillary word and adding an -ing to the verb, its no longer the same tense.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Honestly, you never heard of "I'm having X for [mealtime]" being synonymous with "I'm eating X for [mealtime]?" I'm not the only one in this thread that thinks that. People arguing with me currently here say that example is true.
"I'm having X for dinner" =/= "I have X for dinner."
How many times do we have to explain this to you?!
How many times?!
haha
HAHAHAHA
ha
ha
Seriously they're not the same thing. I don't understand how you can't see that after so many people saying that they're not.
AnathemicOne
Banned
"I'm having X for dinner" =/= "I have X for dinner."
How many times do we have to explain this to you?!
How many times?!
haha
HAHAHAHA
ha
ha
Seriously they're not the same thing. I don't understand how you can't see that after so many people saying that they're not.
Yeah because they are in different tenses, again, I'll list my example in all tenses:
"I have cake" = "I eat cake"
"I'm having cake" = "I'm eating cake"
"I had cake" = "I ate cake"
Earthbound64
Banned
GAF doesn't do that.
The first is a bit corny, sure, but I don't see the issue with these.
Hundreds of years ago fancy elaborate cakes were used as decorations during upper crust events and were there to be admired and not eaten
So when they made this it was like saying you can't have the beauty of a cake made to be admired and not eaten while also getting to eat it
The modern equivalent would be 'you can't have your show car and go offroading too' or something
and in 300 years when we have self cleaning nanopaint no one will understand why you couldnt take your Personal Autonomous Transport Vehicle to dirty environments and still have it in show condition and will fight on the neuralnet about it for years as we do now
So when they made this it was like saying you can't have the beauty of a cake made to be admired and not eaten while also getting to eat it
The modern equivalent would be 'you can't have your show car and go offroading too' or something
and in 300 years when we have self cleaning nanopaint no one will understand why you couldnt take your Personal Autonomous Transport Vehicle to dirty environments and still have it in show condition and will fight on the neuralnet about it for years as we do now
I don't either, just bringing up some examples I suppose
¯\_(ツ
_/¯It's a greater contribution to the thread than any of my posts.
¯\_(ツ
It's a greater contribution to the thread than any of my posts.
Lol. Im trying, man!
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
AnathemicOne
Banned
I fail to see how "I'm having X for dinner" doesn't mean the same thing as "I'm eating X for dinner"
Earthbound64
Banned
I'm having Jane for dinner.
inb4 "Jane is a person, you don't eat Jane."
That's what you think
AnathemicOne
Banned
I'm having Jane for dinner.
inb4 "Jane is a person, you don't eat Jane."
That's what you think
Most modsrn societies don't practice cannibalism. Alot of them do practice food harvesting and eating though.
That same sentence is better constructed as "I'm having Jane over for dinner"
Escape Goat
Member
OP: why u dancing with that guy, Princess Peach
Girl: cuz u r lame! U have a stupid face!
OP: Have me!
Girl: cuz u r lame! U have a stupid face!
OP: Have me!
whatsinaname
Member
Earthbound64
Banned
There. Now you know exactly why you are wrong.
AnathemicOne
Banned
"Eat" has multiple definitions.
I don't sex for dinner. Or any mealtime anyway.
Earthbound64
Banned
I'm sorry to hear that.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Then why is "I'm having X for mealtime" commonplace for American English?
UtterlyPerplexed
Member
Seeing us all go way off-topic into a long, fruitless back and forth about the supposed ambiguity of having cake, I have now come to the realisation in the context of this thread that the idiom "a piece of cake" is stupid.
having =/= have
Having can mean eating. Ex. I'm having cake, I'm having pizza.
Have cake does not mean eat cake.
It implies the same thing.
Regardless, it doesn't mean that the verb keeps the meaning when you change the tense.
See: solicit, soliciting
AnathemicOne
Banned
"I'll eat cake" = "I'll have cake?" No?
God Dayumm
Banned
"Eat" has multiple definitions.
"Have" does too.
"I had her"
Now having your cake and eating it too has a new more interesting meaning
Something which is very easy to do. It is thought that this idiom originated in the 1870s when it was tradition to give cakes as prizes in competitions. ... From this, the expression 'a piece of cake' started being used to describe something that was easy to achieve.
NOT always the same thing. Ill have Brussel sprouts for dinner, but I sure as shit wont eat them.
Again, it is implicit, but it doesn't mean the same thing.
Go to a restaurant: "I will have the chicken."
It merely implies that you will it, but you don't have to.
"I had the yoghurt."
"Did you eat it?"
"Nah."
"Then you didn't 'have' it, did you?"
"I mean, I took it out the fridge, but I decided to bin it instead."
If you merely request food to be within your possession, we will expect you to eat it, as it is the primary purpose of food.
I'll is a contraction of I & will. So that can be correct. The will is a modifier.
But just saying I have cake is not the same as I eat cake.
English can have confusing rules if you are not a native speaker and this apparently is one of them.
Earthbound64
Banned
AnathemicOne
Banned
I fail to see the difference, even if there is one. Another example:
"I can have the cake" = "I can eat the cake" No?
I think the rest of you fail to understand the nuances of language.
To have is merely about something being in your possession. It's essentially an expression we are all used to.
Have, having etc. Never has the same meaning as eat, just that it can imply it.
"I'll take that car" is not the same as "I'll drive that car", but we expect the same outcome.
To have is merely about something being in your possession. It's essentially an expression we are all used to.
Have, having etc. Never has the same meaning as eat, just that it can imply it.
"I'll take that car" is not the same as "I'll drive that car", but we expect the same outcome.
Earthbound64
Banned
No, I know that you fail to understand the structure of language.
And you know this how?
Earthbound64
Banned
Because words can have multiple overlapping definitions.
Switch to the superior 100 posts per page.
I've heard this one as "foxes getting married"
elrechazado
Banned
Earthbound64
Banned
Once again you are putting a modifying word between I and have.
I have cake does not mean I eat cake. Simple as that.
Try to understand the comparison of the two three word sentences without changing anything else.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Typically context can be assumed given the situation. With the particular idiom it is often used in declaring a logical fallacy. I fail to see how a basic argument implies possession especially so with the vagueness of "have" compared to "eat" and "cake".