Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
You are what you eat; You can have too much of a good thing; You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink; You can never/never can tell; You cannot always get what you want; You cannot burn a candle at both ends. You cannot have your cake and eat it too; You cannot get blood out of a stone
Eating crow is a colloquial idiom, [1] used in some English-speaking countries, that means humiliation by admitting having been proven wrong after taking a strong position. [2] The crow is a carrion-eater that is presumably repulsive to eat in the same way that being proven wrong might be emotionally hard to swallow. [2]
"Life, the universe, and everything" is a common name for the off-topic section of an Internet forum, and the phrase is invoked in similar ways to mean "anything at all". Many chatbots, when asked about the meaning of life, will answer "42". Several online calculators are also programmed with the Question.
Nutritionists began recommending that patients with diabetes eat fewer carbohydrates and simple sugars; that patients with cardiovascular disease eat less fatty food to lower cholesterol; and ...
An interpretation of the meaning of a part of a Qur'anic verse is as follows: “and eat and drink but waste not by extravagance, certainly He (Allah) likes not Al‑Musrifoon (those who waste by extravagance)” [al-A’raaf 7:31] The Sunnah encourages moderation in eating, and strongly criticizes extravagance.
Grok (/ ˈ ɡ r ɒ k /) is a neologism coined by American writer Robert A. Heinlein for his 1961 science fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land.While the Oxford English Dictionary summarizes the meaning of grok as "to understand intuitively or by empathy, to establish rapport with" and "to empathize or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment", [1] Heinlein's concept ...
Get lifestyle news, with the latest style articles, fashion news, recipes, home features, videos and much more for your daily life from AOL.
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. Thus, "can't eat and (then) have" would be a correct statement, "can't have and (then) eat" would be an incorrect statement.