Animal-Vegetable-Mineral

[Jipí]

My understanding is that the common definition of a fruit is something that comes from a tree, but is not a seed.

Strawberries are eaten as fruit, too, though, because berries are fruit (I know that strictly speaking strawberries aren't actually berries but nuts).

[Bryan]

strawberries are... nuts..!?!?!?

My mind has just imploded.

Why.. how..fngh

[MisterBernie]

Because botanists took terms from everyday language to assign to scientific categories, which led to all the idiocy about BUT TOMATOES ARE FRUITS AND STRAWBERRIES ARE NUTS.

I just ignore botanical terminology and go for the culinary ones because nuts are nutty and not berry-y, so. THERE, botanists.

[Bryan]

Oh ye-ah! In THEY face!

[Soap]

Nuts are fruits, so strawberries are still fruits even in the most strict pedantic sense, though they arent berries.

[jmcd]

No strawberries are definitely not nuts by any definition. Although it is true that the colloquial classification as "berry" is not the actual bonatical classification, the actual classification is "accessory fruit". What's really annoying is when people insist that peanuts are nuts when they're not even etymologically related a lot of languages. Speaking of which, while people might have thought of tomato as a "vegetable" in English, it's a fruit in Nahuatl.

And vegetable isn't really used as a botanical term at all.

EDIT: and Soap's right. Nuts are just fruit with a shell.

[linguoboy]

My understanding is that the common definition of a fruit is something that comes from a tree, but is not a seed.

Strawberries are eaten as fruit, too, though, because berries are fruit (I know that strictly speaking strawberries aren't actually berries but nuts).

Who calls it a "nut"? Botanically, a nut is a fruit, but a dry one with a hard exterior containing one (seldom two) indehiscent (not opening at maturity) seeds. But strawberries are not "fruits" at all in the botanical sense because they not derived from the ovary of the fertilised plant. The flesh of the strawberry, on the other hand, is derived from the receptacles which hold the ovaries. This makes it an "accessory fruit" in the same class as figs or mulberries. Pomes (which grow from a fused hypanthium) are another form of accessory fruit. Apples, pears, and quinces are all examples of pomes.

Except that tomatoes are considered vegetable by most, while technically being a fruit though rarely cooked (in my experience).

So "your experience" doesn't include any exposure to Italian or Middle Eastern cookery?

Both fruits and vegetables are eaten raw and cooked. The difference, IME, is more one of sweetness vs savoriness. So you would use raw cucumbers and tomatoes in a salad, but you wouldn't decorate a cake with them. And you'd bake cherries in a pie but not cherry tomatoes.

Obviously, we're talking tendencies here. Catalans cook pork with prunes and I grew up decorating hams with pineapple slices and occasionally even maraschino cherries; the Japanese make candy flavoured with tomato and sweet corn and Filipinos make ice cream flavoured with both of these and avocado to boot. But for most people, corn is still a "vegetable" and cherries are a "fruit".

And vegetable isn't really used as a botanical term at all.

Right, popular terms are essentially culinary terms because most people's interaction with these entities consists of eating them, not studying them or growing them.

[Jipí]

Stupid half knowledge again

[linguoboy]

Stupid half knowledge again

And you from a part of the world with fruit soups!

[finlay]

I think a rough definition would be that culinary vegetables are mostly cooked, while culinary fruit mostly isn't. What do you now with cucumbers, though? Or bananas?

Except that tomatoes are considered vegetable by most, while technically being a fruit though rarely cooked (in my experience).

My understanding is that the common definition of a fruit is something that comes from a tree, but is not a seed.
Whereas the technical definition is something edible which encases the seed of the plant. Thus, squash (including cucumber), tomatoes, citrus, apples, pears, bananas, maybe berries, etc. are technically fruit, while roots like carrots and radishes, and leafy greens like spinach and lettuce are vegetables. I'm not sure where potatoes or legumes fall into the categories though.

The scientific definition of a fruit is that, yes. A berry has another scientific definition, which is any fruit that contains multiple seeds – under this definition, apples (maybe, linguoboy is probably more right than me), bananas and tomatoes are berries while strawberries and raspberries aren't, because their seeds are on the outside of the fruit (plus I can't remember, but raspberries may be actually a small connected cluster of berries). A prototypical example of a non-berry would be a peach, because it contains a stone instead of multiple seeds. In everyday language this is utterly ludicrous, however, because to normal people, berries are the small red ones that grow in clusters, usually on bushes, and bananas seem to kinda fall into their own category.

If you don't use the scientific definition, like normal people, it is harder to define the fringes, but my general-purpose definition is that a vegetable is an edible part of a plant that is generally savoury. A fruit for me is a subset of scientific fruits which therefore doesn't include savoury fruits, like tomato and cucumber, which I would class as vegetables (generally, if you can add it to a salad without calling it "fruit salad", it's a vegetable). I think potatoes are vegetables however you cut it, but they are tubers (like seeds, almost) rather than leaves or fruits, possibly similar to carrots, and they have a different kind of nutritional value because they are mostly carbohydrate rather than whatever is in your average fruit/vegetable. That's then the other definition I'd use (and I know this is lazy and doesn't show much initiative): does the government include it in its list of fruit and veg that you should ideally have at least 5 of each day? Because potatoes aren't in that.

And that's not even getting into nuts, some of which are berries, seeds, or plain fruit and it can be difficult to tell. At the end of the day, they're just fucking nuts....

As for animals, I think that's a classic example of prototyping, coupled with probable historical use of the word to mean what we now call mammals. Basically, our prototype of an animal is a mammal, probably a cat or a dog. Therefore while we know that insects and birds and so on are animals, because they like move and around and shit, the fact that they are very different from your prototypical cat is what throws people.

[Mecislau]

I used "animal-vegetable-mineral" because it is the set phrase one uses.

Who is this "one" you speak of? I've never heard that phrase before in my life.

The thing is, people don't really refer to "trees" as "plants" (altho they are "plant-life" or "greenery")

What? I would without the slightest second-guessing call a tree a "plant", and would find it quite odd if anyone didn't. I think you're probably overgeneralizing your own dialect here.

and peopel draw a distinction between plantlife we eat (veg and fruit) versus plantlife we don't.

While that's true, I no longer have any clue what you're actually looking for (well, not that I had much of one to begin with; I still find your first post quite puzzling).

[Soap]

I used "animal-vegetable-mineral" because it is the set phrase one uses.

Who is this "one" you speak of? I've never heard that phrase before in my life.

Well I've heard it in school, as a way to classify all things, though as I said, that was when I was in fifth grade. Im guessing it's not used as much as it was even a few decades ago because it's inaccurate.

[jmcd]

That's then the other definition I'd use (and I know this is lazy and doesn't show much initiative): does the government include it in its list of fruit and veg that you should ideally have at least 5 of each day? Because potatoes aren't in that.

No they don't which is why for culinary purposes, I'd call them carbs rather than vegetables. Vegetables have to not just be edible plants that aren't fruit but also be multicoloured and give vitamins and minerals.

[sirred]

I used "animal-vegetable-mineral" because it is the set phrase one uses.

Who is this "one" you speak of? I've never heard that phrase before in my life.

Let's sing it together now!

I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

[Gojera]

Culinary fruit are often cooked: ever had an apple pie or a blueberry muffin?

I suspect that the English category "fruit" includes botanical fruit that is used in stereotypically sweet or dessert-like dishes, whereas "vegetable" is more about non-grain plant parts that are used as staples. Bitter plants would be classified as vegetables but not fruits. Or more generally, the english words are more about food culture rather plant biology. "Vegetable" is not a botanical category, but probably the main semantic category in English, whereas "fruit" is a separate or sub-category of plants used as food in a specific way.

This kind of thing is always going to be language- and culture-specific. As for fish, I remember reading recently about a traditional Tibetan taboo on eating fish and shellfish; it's probably not that unusual. I love shellfish, but somewhat share the revulsion many people in my culture would share in eating worms, grubs, and insects. Whereas I do not at all share the taboo on eating horses. It's irrational, but invertebrates are controversial as food.

[linguoboy]

I suspect that the English category "fruit" includes botanical fruit that is used in stereotypically sweet or dessert-like dishes, whereas "vegetable" is more about non-grain plant parts that are used as staples. Bitter plants would be classified as vegetables but not fruits. Or more generally, the english words are more about food culture rather plant biology. "Vegetable" is not a botanical category, but probably the main semantic category in English, whereas "fruit" is a separate or sub-category of plants used as food in a specific way.

One of the primary insights I garnered from reading Lakoff is that our linguistic categorisations are largely determined by how we interact with things. That's why you can have such widely varying definitions of "fruit" depending on whether you ask a farmer, a biologist, or a chef. It's why you need to come up with explicit legal definitions for particular categories and why these are so often at odds with popular usage.

This kind of thing is always going to be language- and culture-specific. As for fish, I remember reading recently about a traditional Tibetan taboo on eating fish and shellfish; it's probably not that unusual. I love shellfish, but somewhat share the revulsion many people in my culture would share in eating worms, grubs, and insects. Whereas I do not at all share the taboo on eating horses. It's irrational, but invertebrates are controversial as food.

I thought it very strange that my favourite local Ethiopian restaurant served "mock fish" until I read up a bit on Ethiopian Orthodoxy and found that, when it comes to fasting and abstinence, fish is considered "meat". There are apparently also older taboos in Ethiopia against the eating of fish which have now been attached to certain feast days.

[Observer]

It's interesting how different everyone's definitions are, even as we speak the same language. I've personally never heard someone claim that birds weren't animals, potatoes weren't vegetables or trees weren't plants, but to some of you, this seems natural and common. Fascinating.

Bryan, you say your artlang has different words for "living non-animal stuff" and "not-fruit-not-fungus-that-is-carrots etc." To my understanding, English's colloquial "fruit" and "vegetable" fit that perfectly.

Does your artlang include contaxonomy?

[TomHChappell]

Tom:

"Early Greek Philosophy", Jonathan Barnes (2001) Penguin Classics p.xxiii, p12

p12
"Thales...believed that the soul is something which produces motion ... he said that magnets have souls because they move iron"
--Aristotle

Thales, the "first philosopher"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales

Thanks muchly!