Which is it?

You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

meaning you can have it or you can eat it, but once it's gone there's no cake left to eat.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

meaning, as I understand it, you actually own the cake, so you can eat it if you want to.

A brief Google search suggests the second option is common usage (though I would argue misusage.)

  • 5
    Whatever is logically correct, it is not relevant. The recognized saying is the second one.
    – Mitch
    Jul 26, 2015 at 13:42
  • 2
    @Mitch Yes, but it's also one of the most bathetic sayings in the English language. At some point, someone will have to explain what the point of having a cake is, if you can't eat it. ;)
    – Spencer
    Dec 8, 2016 at 0:28
  • 3
    Curiously, the first ordering (which sounds "strange" to me) was more popular prior to WWII.
    – Hot Licks
    Dec 8, 2016 at 0:59
  • 1
    Although not one of the choices you listed (and hence not suitable as an answer), the most sensible phrasing I've come across for this is "you cannot eat your cake and have it still". Here's one collection in which it features.
    – Lawrence
    May 11, 2018 at 16:09

6 Answers 6


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.

  • 6
    +1 for emphasizing that neither phrasing is incorrect.
    – Marthaª
    Mar 30, 2011 at 20:25
  • Double negative? Almost a question in itself ;)
    – mplungjan
    Apr 27, 2011 at 16:55
  • Were you talking to me or @Martha?
    – MrHen
    Apr 27, 2011 at 17:43

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.

  • This saying specifically counts on the ambiguity of "have". It wouldn't be nearly as funny otherwise.
    – Marthaª
    Apr 30, 2011 at 14:03

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too

means that you cannot keep your cake if you eat it.

PS: on a partially related note, the Italian version of this saying states that

You cannot have a full barrel and a drunken wife!

  • 2
    What if you have a barrel full of drunken wife?
    – mfg
    Mar 30, 2011 at 20:56
  • @mfg: That would be odd indeed!
    – nico
    Mar 30, 2011 at 21:04
  • 1
    If we’re adding equivalents, the Danish one is “you cannot blow with flour in your mouth”. Jul 26, 2015 at 12:19

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.

Some other interesting observations:

Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, points out that perhaps a more logical or easier to understand version of this saying is: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too”. Professor Brians writes that a common source of confusion about this idiom stems from the verb to have which in this case indicates that once eaten, keeping possession of the cake is no longer possible, seeing that it is in your stomach (and no longer exists as a cake). 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. Consequently, the literal meaning of the reversed idiom doesn't match the metaphorical meaning.

From Wikipedia.

  • It would appear Professor Brians agrees with my interpretation but I may be (and often am) wrong
    – ChrisO
    Apr 9, 2011 at 16:59

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 "I shot an elephant in my pajamas" kind.


It's obviously "You cannot eat your cake and have it", not the other way around!

Why? Because you can have your cake, and (then) eat it; but not the other way around. Think about, it:

  • "I had a cake and ate it." - Just fine.
  • "I ate a cake and had it." - Nope.

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.

  • 3
    You are fundamentally misunderstanding what the idiom means, as nearly all the other answers have made clear The and here does not mean ‘and then’, but ‘and also (simultaneously)’. You cannot both have (=keep) your cake and also simultaneously eat it. If you keep it, you can't eat it; if you eat it, you can't keep it. Jul 26, 2015 at 12:22
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet: I understand it just fine, but the literal sequence of words has two interpretations in the have-eat order, and only one - the intended one - in the eat-have order. So, that's what we should be using. See edit.
    – einpoklum
    Jul 26, 2015 at 12:51
  • 1
    What you say may be a logical solution but that is not relevant. The saying is "...have...eat...". That's just the way the saying goes.
    – Mitch
    Jul 26, 2015 at 13:40

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.