Fruit
-
Engagement bait.
right on. this tweet is like saying "there's not a single country in africa that starts with the letter K." there obviously is, but it's targeting people who are knowledgable enough to know the answer but not intelligent enough to understand the point of the tweet.
-
Dear Mr Encyclopedia, when were raspberries discovered? Wasn't Avalon "the isle of apples?" When did Christian bibles start describing the forbidden fruit as "apples?" Were they not red apples?
What color did they call ripe ribe avu-crispa (a gooseberry)?
The Biblical fruit is just given as "pษrรฎ" and could be any fruit. Avalon is from the Welsh aflonydd, "peaceful", so named because it was King Arthur's vacation spot. Raspberries have not yet been discovered, at time of writing.
-
Engagement bait.
Iโm already married.
-
But aren't oranges actually green?
*Not a joke, btw. Oranges grown in tropical places are green.
Even if they were, they're not called greens.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Even if those leaves were a fruit, they're not called greens. Some kinds of leaves are called that as a general term, but not the ones in the picture. He's wrong on so many levels!
-
A fact that I hadn't realized. TIL.
Prior to the fruit it was just considered a shade of red
-
I thought briefly about editing that to say, "in this context", but I thought it might be redundant.
It's like the whole fruit/vegetable debate, and there not really being a scientific category of "vegetables" that aligns with the common usage. However, in common usage, the loose, lay definition of "vegetable" is far more useful than the scientific, taxonomical one.
Context is king.
Yeah. I've had this discussing with others in different forms, where they are arguing that words have specific definitions..
I would go even further.. My take is that what you said is right, but also, what a given context (like "cooking") is can be very different for different people.. So even in situations where three is really only one meaning for a word (rare, but maybe "broccoli" is an example), the word is understood differently by different people because it has different connotations attached for everyone (e.g. "I love/hate it", "my grandparent used to cook it badly").
Word definitions are like the lowest common denominator consensus version of those individual meaning, but they are changing slightly all the time as people change. Dictionaries are just documenting that evolution, but are constantly playing catch-up.
-
That tracks. Steve Jobs was known for his enjoyment of fruit, to a potentially problematic degree.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Dunno who that is but Tim Apple invented the computer and his ancestors invented the apple (in 196 AD) and just for the record if you think enjoying fruit is problematic youโre probably homophobic or something ยฏ\(ใ)/ยฏ iunno go away
-
Sometimes I learn something that makes me think, how the hell had I not figured that out sometime in the past half-century.
For some reason, french has a specific term for orange/red hair that's quite old. So we don't have red haired people. I don't know if other languages share this.
-
I can also say that bananas are quite yellow when ripe, without additives. Have had banana trees in 2 different houses, of 2 different banana varieties.
I think I unintentionally blurred together two separate things.
Citrus can be ripe and still be coloured green. Ethylene is used to make them orange, as they look more appealing to buyers that way.
Green bananas on the other hand are just not ripe. Ethylene is still used here, but to "kickoff" the fruit's ripening process - in just a few days it becomes yellow and ripe.
There's many things that release ethylene naturally when ripening, like tomatoes, apple, kiwi, ... These need to be kept away from other sensitive produce (lettuce, spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, ...) as they'll start looking "nasty" and lower their shelf life.
-
Even if those leaves were a fruit, they're not called greens. Some kinds of leaves are called that as a general term, but not the ones in the picture. He's wrong on so many levels!
Is that what he was saying? That's what I was confused about. Those leaves are not greens. They are green, but still everything you said.
-
Yeah. I've had this discussing with others in different forms, where they are arguing that words have specific definitions..
I would go even further.. My take is that what you said is right, but also, what a given context (like "cooking") is can be very different for different people.. So even in situations where three is really only one meaning for a word (rare, but maybe "broccoli" is an example), the word is understood differently by different people because it has different connotations attached for everyone (e.g. "I love/hate it", "my grandparent used to cook it badly").
Word definitions are like the lowest common denominator consensus version of those individual meaning, but they are changing slightly all the time as people change. Dictionaries are just documenting that evolution, but are constantly playing catch-up.
I agree with you!
Word definitions are like the lowest common denominator consensus version of those individual meaning, but they are changing slightly all the time as people change. Dictionaries are just documenting that evolution, but are constantly playing catch-up
This is my pet peeve, and yet I know I'm wrong. I hate Miriam Webster for being a catalog of slang; it's not a dictionary, anymore. OED is the only English dictionary. Words have meanings, despite 20% of the population misunderstanding or intentionally redefining them.
And yet, and yet... it is not possible to argue against popular usage in natural languages. The best you can do is use a conlang that enforces strict no-evolution rules, such as the stance Esperanto has traditionally taken. Or learn Volpuk, a logic based language that strives to eliminate all ambiguity and achieves only being impossible to use outside of extremely narrow circumstances, because that's not how humans think.
This is one of the great internal conflicts in my world: natural language evolves and changes, and context alters meaning even further; and yet I desire reliable definitions and disambiguity, and shudder when I see MW has added "boomer: N. An older person."
-
The Biblical fruit is just given as "pษrรฎ" and could be any fruit. Avalon is from the Welsh aflonydd, "peaceful", so named because it was King Arthur's vacation spot. Raspberries have not yet been discovered, at time of writing.
I tried to be careful about the biblical reference. It's been translated as "apple" since at least the 12th century CE.
The biblical comment was not to argue that the Torah said "apple", but that it has been translated as "apple" for centuries, demonstrating that the apple has been a commonly known fruit in Britain for a long time; and that ripe apples are frequently red.
-
I tried to be careful about the biblical reference. It's been translated as "apple" since at least the 12th century CE.
The biblical comment was not to argue that the Torah said "apple", but that it has been translated as "apple" for centuries, demonstrating that the apple has been a commonly known fruit in Britain for a long time; and that ripe apples are frequently red.
Apple (malum) was used of the fruit from the 12th Century or thereabouts in ecclesiastical Latin, but the first known red apple is recorded only in the mid-17th Century, when an apple fell on Isaac Newton's head and turned bright red in embarrassment.
The trend presumably picked up from there - c.f. the popularity of rouge in the French court.
-
Pendants will argue that black is not a colour
One might ask Crayola.
-
Having grown up in Brazil, I can confidently say that most of our oranges are indeed orange. Green is usually the colour of non-ripe ones and you can expect extreme acidity from them.
You would be confidently wrong. They are artificially de-greened with ethylene. In Brazil it doesn't get cold enough for natural de-greening. Also, having tasted both natural green and de-greened (and naturally de-greened) oranges. Their outer color has no correlation whatsoever to the taste.
-
right on. this tweet is like saying "there's not a single country in africa that starts with the letter K." there obviously is, but it's targeting people who are knowledgable enough to know the answer but not intelligent enough to understand the point of the tweet.
Knairobi
-
Knairobi
This is how you do engagement bait
-
I agree with you!
Word definitions are like the lowest common denominator consensus version of those individual meaning, but they are changing slightly all the time as people change. Dictionaries are just documenting that evolution, but are constantly playing catch-up
This is my pet peeve, and yet I know I'm wrong. I hate Miriam Webster for being a catalog of slang; it's not a dictionary, anymore. OED is the only English dictionary. Words have meanings, despite 20% of the population misunderstanding or intentionally redefining them.
And yet, and yet... it is not possible to argue against popular usage in natural languages. The best you can do is use a conlang that enforces strict no-evolution rules, such as the stance Esperanto has traditionally taken. Or learn Volpuk, a logic based language that strives to eliminate all ambiguity and achieves only being impossible to use outside of extremely narrow circumstances, because that's not how humans think.
This is one of the great internal conflicts in my world: natural language evolves and changes, and context alters meaning even further; and yet I desire reliable definitions and disambiguity, and shudder when I see MW has added "boomer: N. An older person."
Eh, I've come to love it. Life is messy. Complexity is everywhere, and understanding of anything interesting or meaningful is always partial. Language limits (or influences) what you are able to think clearly about, so why not just let language be unlimited?
To me, this take aligns with the Japanese concept of Wabi-sabi, which is about finding beauty in imperfection and decay.. Kind of a guiding aesthetic for me.
-
Yes indeed. Before we had "orange", and also "purple" everything was just "red" which is why we have red onions and red cabbage that are anything but red and several species of bird are called red despite being clearly orange coloured.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Purple was sort of around. There was a dye derived by clams with a name that sounds like purple by the Phoenicians, Greeks, then Romans, and was more of a red-purple to red, but that eventually evolved into the word we use now. They also attributed it to the color of wine and of all things, the ocean.
Weirdly blue is a pretty rare color concept in the ancient world, and a number of cultures often just combined it with green, or vice versa. The closest to blue as a concept they usually got was indigo, another dye imported from India, and they'd dilute that into woad for a slightly lighter more pastel/ periwinkle blue (it wouldn't stick as well as true indigo though).
