• Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    Is that like an official definition for vegetables from some government? Because I don’t feel like there is a particularly good definition of vegetables. People mostly wouldn’t refer to apples as vegetables, for example.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Vegetables are edible parts of plants that are consumed by humans or other animals as food. This original meaning is still commonly used, and is applied to plants collectively to refer to all edible plant matter, including flowers, fruits, stems, leaves, roots, and seeds. An alternative definition is applied somewhat arbitrarily, often by culinary and cultural tradition; it may include savoury fruits such as tomatoes and courgettes, flowers such as broccoli, and seeds such as pulses, but exclude foods derived from some plants that are fruits, flowers, nuts, and cereal grains.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        The analogy doesn’t work. The apple is the narrow group, while vegetables are the wide group.

        To make your analogy fit to the original statement it would be: “People mostly wouldn’t refer to a Honda Accord as a car”. Which is the opposite of what you are saying and it’s also not true, so it really doesn’t make any sense.

        The actual issue at hand is that there are two definitions of the word vegetable. One is the wider meaning, where all edible parts of plants are vegetables (and then apples clearly are vegetables), while there’s the culinary definition of vegetables, where vegetables are savoury edible parts of plants, and under that definition apples are not vegetables.

        You use the broader definition, while @Ephera@lemmy.ml is using the culinary definition.