zompist bboard

This is the original expression and the one that makes sense. You can't eat your cake and still have it. The nonsensical "you can't have your cake and eat it too" has become more common.

The new phrasing still allows for the original meaning to be a valid interpretation. Just not an intuitive one.

Wikipedia says both forms have been around for c. 500 years... I think that, though illogical, I prefer the eat>have orientation because it puts the action verb... Which determines the meaning of the whole idiom ......last.

'Have food' means the same thing as 'eat food' (eg. 'We're having cake for dessert.').

'You can't have (=eat) your cake and eat it too' is as sensical as it gets.

"You can't eat your cake and have it too" doesn't quite work out semantically for me, at least - in particular, "and have it too" doesn't mean "still possess a cake" to me, that'd be "and still have it"

The modern phrasing isn't illogical. "And" does not always imply chronological order— if I eat fish and chips, it doesn't mean I eat the fish, then the chips.

It is a weird expression, because cakes aren't normally something you keep without ever eating. It might make more sense as something like "You can't keep a coin and spend it too."