Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:56:15 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote or quoted:

Technically speaking, what is the difference between a
fruit and a vegetable?

Dunno if it's very technical - but:

``Definition of fruit and vegetable''

- http://www.comevisit.com/chuckali/definition/

But it's incorrect, because it confuses botanical and culinary definitions:

Obviously, these are not botanical definitions.

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

and a fruit is a specific part of a flowering plant that contains the
seed(s)?

Because of beans, strawberries and cashew apples ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:56:15 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote or quoted:

Technically speaking, what is the difference between a
fruit and a vegetable?

Dunno if it's very technical - but:

``Definition of fruit and vegetable''

- http://www.comevisit.com/chuckali/definition/

But it's incorrect, because it confuses botanical and culinary definitions:

Obviously, these are not botanical definitions.

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

and a fruit is a specific part of a flowering plant that contains the
seed(s)?

Because of beans, strawberries and cashew apples ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:56:15 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote or quoted:

Technically speaking, what is the difference between a
fruit and a vegetable?

Dunno if it's very technical - but:

``Definition of fruit and vegetable''

- http://www.comevisit.com/chuckali/definition/

But it's incorrect, because it confuses botanical and culinary definitions:

Obviously, these are not botanical definitions.

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]


I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk of being
accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't mineral;
they aren't animal. What's left? With microorganisms, it's my understanding
that the line between vegetable and not-vegetable is unclear, but I don't
think that's what we are talking about. The fact is that I have no clue what
that comment is talking about.

and a fruit is a specific part of a flowering plant that contains the
seed(s)?

Because of beans, strawberries and cashew apples ;-)

Beans, strawberries, and cashews are all flowering plants. Again, I have no
idea whatever what you mean. "Flowering plant" is a botanical category. It
has nothing to do with whether a flower is prominent or nearly invisible, or
whether it is important in the florist trade. Mushrooms and bacteria, for
example, are NOT flowering plants.

The definition is really so simple that one is tempted to wonder why people
want to complicate it, and why they think complication is a key to
clarification.


--
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel


Saddam is gone. Ceterum, censeo Arafat esse delendam.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:56:15 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote or quoted:

Technically speaking, what is the difference between a
fruit and a vegetable?

Dunno if it's very technical - but:

``Definition of fruit and vegetable''

- http://www.comevisit.com/chuckali/definition/

But it's incorrect, because it confuses botanical and culinary definitions:

Obviously, these are not botanical definitions.

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]


I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk of being
accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't mineral;
they aren't animal. What's left? With microorganisms, it's my understanding
that the line between vegetable and not-vegetable is unclear, but I don't
think that's what we are talking about. The fact is that I have no clue what
that comment is talking about.

and a fruit is a specific part of a flowering plant that contains the
seed(s)?

Because of beans, strawberries and cashew apples ;-)

Beans, strawberries, and cashews are all flowering plants. Again, I have no
idea whatever what you mean. "Flowering plant" is a botanical category. It
has nothing to do with whether a flower is prominent or nearly invisible, or
whether it is important in the florist trade. Mushrooms and bacteria, for
example, are NOT flowering plants.

The definition is really so simple that one is tempted to wonder why people
want to complicate it, and why they think complication is a key to
clarification.


--
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel


Saddam is gone. Ceterum, censeo Arafat esse delendam.

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]

I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk of being
accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't mineral;
they aren't animal. What's left? [...]

Briefly:

Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi - and possibly viruses (as well
as plants).
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]

I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk of being
accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't mineral;
they aren't animal. What's left? [...]

Briefly:

Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi - and possibly viruses (as well
as plants).
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:25:14 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]

I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk of being
accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't mineral;
they aren't animal. What's left? [...]

Briefly:

Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi - and possibly viruses (as well
as plants).

This kind of obfuscation borders on the malicious. The thread started with a
query from someone who was confused about whether he should call e.g.
tomatoes vegetables or fruits. The answer was pretty straightforward. You
can surround it with fog as much as you want.

Fungi (e.g.) are plants, but not Flowering Plants. I covered that.
I pointed out that the animal/vegetable boundary is fuzzy at the level of
microorganisms.

For me, this thread is closed. Have fun.

--
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel


Saddam is gone. Ceterum, censeo Arafat esse delendam.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:25:14 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]

I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk of being
accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't mineral;
they aren't animal. What's left? [...]

Briefly:

Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi - and possibly viruses (as well
as plants).

This kind of obfuscation borders on the malicious. The thread started with a
query from someone who was confused about whether he should call e.g.
tomatoes vegetables or fruits. The answer was pretty straightforward. You
can surround it with fog as much as you want.

Fungi (e.g.) are plants, but not Flowering Plants. I covered that.
I pointed out that the animal/vegetable boundary is fuzzy at the level of
microorganisms.

For me, this thread is closed. Have fun.

--
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel


Saddam is gone. Ceterum, censeo Arafat esse delendam.

Stan Goodman wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:25:14 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:


Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]

I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk of being
accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:


Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't mineral;
they aren't animal. What's left? [...]

Briefly:

Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi - and possibly viruses (as well
as plants).


This kind of obfuscation borders on the malicious.

LOFL.

Technical difference - Abbott vs Costello

Stan Goodman wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:25:14 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:


Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something that is
neither animal nor mineral [...]

I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk of being
accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:


Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't mineral;
they aren't animal. What's left? [...]

Briefly:

Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi - and possibly viruses (as well
as plants).


This kind of obfuscation borders on the malicious.

LOFL.

Technical difference - Abbott vs Costello

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:25:14 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something
that is neither animal nor mineral [...]

I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk
of being accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't
mineral; they aren't animal. What's left? [...]

Briefly:

Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi - and possibly viruses (as well
as plants).

This kind of obfuscation borders on the malicious. The thread started with a
query from someone who was confused about whether he should call e.g.
tomatoes vegetables or fruits. The answer was pretty straightforward. You
can surround it with fog as much as you want.

Fungi (e.g.) are plants, but not Flowering Plants. I covered that.
I pointed out that the animal/vegetable boundary is fuzzy at the
level of microorganisms.

For me, this thread is closed. Have fun.

Your problem is that you don't know - but don't know that you don't know :-(

To repeat what I already advised you, *none* of the members of the
kingdoms Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi are vegetables.

That's because all vegetables are plants - by definition - and plants are
a whole different kingdom - the kingdom Plantae.

I recommend you research the issue - at least a little bit - before you
expound on the subject in public any further.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:25:14 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:53:43 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:
Stan Goodman wrote or quoted:

Why is it difficult to understand that a vegetable is something
that is neither animal nor mineral [...]

I'm not sure how to understand your answers below, so (at the risk
of being accused of not having a sense of humor, I do it straight:

Because of mushrooms and bacteria ;-)

Mushrooms are certainly vegetables: they are life, so they aren't
mineral; they aren't animal. What's left? [...]

Briefly:

Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi - and possibly viruses (as well
as plants).

This kind of obfuscation borders on the malicious. The thread started with a
query from someone who was confused about whether he should call e.g.
tomatoes vegetables or fruits. The answer was pretty straightforward. You
can surround it with fog as much as you want.

Fungi (e.g.) are plants, but not Flowering Plants. I covered that.
I pointed out that the animal/vegetable boundary is fuzzy at the
level of microorganisms.

For me, this thread is closed. Have fun.

Your problem is that you don't know - but don't know that you don't know :-(

To repeat what I already advised you, *none* of the members of the
kingdoms Eubacteria, Archaea, Protists, Fungi are vegetables.

That's because all vegetables are plants - by definition - and plants are
a whole different kingdom - the kingdom Plantae.

I recommend you research the issue - at least a little bit - before you
expound on the subject in public any further.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:00:31 GMT, Alfred Falk
wrote:

Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote in
:

Hi, Everybody,

While this might sound absurdly obvious, this question
is *not* a troll.

Technically speaking, what is the difference between a
fruit and a vegetable?

Can anyone tell me the plain-english rule on this?

You've already got some good answers on this, but I'll add my own 2
cents. The "problem" arises because we have two different usage
systems:
1. "ordinary English", where the distinction between f & v has mostly to
do with how we use the material, rather than plant physiology.
2. "Scientific botanical English" where the distinction between f & v is
strictly based on plant physiology.

I think Alfred has the best answer. This topic usually comes up when
discussing the tomato as a vegetable, which has to do with the wording
of certain (import?) regs in the US. The tomato was declared a
vegetable (as opposed to a fruit) for regulatory purposes.

As far as plants go, the distinction doesn't mean a great deal. It's
mainly a convenience for people. Almost any difference one could think
of (annual vs. perennial) has exceptions. I went through the same
thing with 'spice' vs. 'herb.' The best rule I found was that spices
are produced in semi- or tropical climates, while herbs are grown in
temperate regions.

One might say that fruits are vegetables with a high sugar content,
but I'm sure there are exceptions both ways to this, too. And of
course, the individual tomato or pepper or cucumber is the 'fruit' of
its plant. Don't worry about it. :-)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:00:31 GMT, Alfred Falk
wrote:

Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote in
:

Hi, Everybody,

While this might sound absurdly obvious, this question
is *not* a troll.

Technically speaking, what is the difference between a
fruit and a vegetable?

Can anyone tell me the plain-english rule on this?

You've already got some good answers on this, but I'll add my own 2
cents. The "problem" arises because we have two different usage
systems:
1. "ordinary English", where the distinction between f & v has mostly to
do with how we use the material, rather than plant physiology.
2. "Scientific botanical English" where the distinction between f & v is
strictly based on plant physiology.

I think Alfred has the best answer. This topic usually comes up when
discussing the tomato as a vegetable, which has to do with the wording
of certain (import?) regs in the US. The tomato was declared a
vegetable (as opposed to a fruit) for regulatory purposes.

As far as plants go, the distinction doesn't mean a great deal. It's
mainly a convenience for people. Almost any difference one could think
of (annual vs. perennial) has exceptions. I went through the same
thing with 'spice' vs. 'herb.' The best rule I found was that spices
are produced in semi- or tropical climates, while herbs are grown in
temperate regions.

One might say that fruits are vegetables with a high sugar content,
but I'm sure there are exceptions both ways to this, too. And of
course, the individual tomato or pepper or cucumber is the 'fruit' of
its plant. Don't worry about it. :-)

On 16 Oct 2004 23:06:03 GMT, "Stan Goodman"
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:56:15 UTC, Tim Tyler opined:

Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote or quoted:

Technically speaking, what is the difference between a
fruit and a vegetable?

Dunno if it's very technical - but:

``Definition of fruit and vegetable''

- http://www.comevisit.com/chuckali/definition/

But it's incorrect, because it confuses botanical and culinary definitions:

The problem is the question. It's like saying "technically speaking,
what's the difference between a long story and a novel?" There IS no
technical definition. When the gov't recommends 8 servings of "fruits
and vegetables" per day, they're not talking taxonomy, but general
perceptions. It might more specifically be 8 servings of "foods
produced by plants." But then some would quibble about sugar, or
vegetable oil.