• Soggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    “Each containing a single seed inside” does not mean “those are the seeds” and I provided a counter-example to illustrate my point.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Ah I see. That makes a bit more sense.

      But I still don’t think that’s a great company the example, because I believe what they were actually saying was that just because it contains a see doesn’t make it a fruit, in the same way that if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.

      I know they’re wrong, but I don’t think that your counter example addressed what their confusion was.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.

        You reasonably could, though. “Fruit” has different meanings (with significant overlap) when speaking culinarily versus botanically. Corn, for example, is a fruit and a vegetable and a seed and a cereal grain depending on context.

        • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          You’re having a different discussion than what I’m trying to make.

          Im aware of the difference between botanical and culinary definition. Im aware a strawberry isn’t botanically a berry. Im aware a pumpkin is a berry. I’m aware that raspberries are accessory fruits, that peanuts aren’t nuts, etc.

          I’m saying that your peach example isn’t going to illustrate that difference to someone who doesn’t already get it.