I can accept that the tone of a message might be too dismissive
Chris Kott wrote:Again, this is an uncontroversial topic. We're talking biological definitions here. If I am off-base, please let me know. Otherwise, perhaps this is a discussion worth having?
What are the culinary reasons a fruit is a fruit, and a vegetable a vegetable? Are there any consistent ones?
I don't see how it's insulting to culinary history to delineate on biological terms.
Chris Kott wrote:Anyone familiar with my posts, and certainly those familiar with requested edits, knows that I go to some length to be accurate and precise, and to use language properly. So to what degree is it necessary to dumb down the precision of my language?
Chris Kott wrote:
Words have meaning.
raven ranson wrote:
IfWhen I correct a Canadian about the 'correct' use of the word, they get offended that I'm telling them what they should do.
Chris Kott wrote:There is a scientific definition.
Chris Kott wrote:Again, the fruit part of a plant cannot, by botanical definition, be a vegetable. If we are eating vegetables, we are eating the vegetation, and not the parts resultant from the flowering.
1- any plant whose fruit, seeds, roots, tubers, bulbs, stems, leaves, or flower parts are used as food, as the tomato, bean, beet, potato, onion, asparagus, spinach, or cauliflower.
2- the edible part of such a plant, as the tuber of the potato.
3- any member of the vegetable kingdom; plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable wrote:Vegetables are parts of plants that are consumed by humans as food as part of a meal. The original meaning is still commonly used and is applied to plants collectively to refer to all edible plant matter, including the flowers, fruits, stems, leaves, roots, and seeds. The alternate definition of the term vegetable is applied somewhat arbitrarily, often by culinary and cultural tradition. It may exclude foods derived from some plants that are fruits, nuts, and cereal grains, but include fruits from others such as tomatoes and courgettes and seeds such as pulses.
Trace Oswald wrote:I am certain about that 2+2 thing though.
I get a kick out of the term Hammer drill every time I'm tempted to strike that seemingly recalcitrant screw just one time with the base of the drill.
Chris Kott wrote: Words have meaning. If I use the pommel of my knife to hammer, it doesn't cease being a knife to become a hammer.
The staff here go through serious hoops to keep the trolls out here. Were I a troll, this place would be no fun for me, as I would have to restrain myself too much simply to remain. Also, I think my posts would be more political and less helpful in nature.
I submit, therefore, that I am not a troll.
That being the case, should there not be a modicum of trust in the fact that I am not posting anything maliciously, or intending to subvert the tone of the conversation to that end?
I prefer to use the words Annihilate or Obliterate to mean to destroy completely. But that's just my version of Canadian. I might read to much.
The real live, vernacular, meaning between decimating and devastate are culturally dependent.
In England, I understand decimate is still reduce by one-tenth. In Canada, decimate means to destroy completely.