What's the difference between fruits and vegetables?

[Niteowl255]

I just want to clarify something. So fruits ARE vegetable? Are they just a sub-category of veggies?

Reading that article I didn't come away with a clear understanding of either.

[Cliffy]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...and-vegetables

It's actually a Science Advisory Board supplement, not something from Cecil himself.

As Terey says in the article, it is confusing because, while there is a precise botanical definition of "fruit," it's not exactly congruent with the culinary definition. That's because we think of things as fruits if they're sweet, juicy, and, typically, something you can snack on, while vegetables are savory and more likely to be found as part of a prepared dish. Therefore, things that are anatomically fruits but which are traditionally consumed the same way we eat vegetables (tomatoes, squash, cucumbers) are culinarily (and commonly) thought of as veggies. And this makes sense because these fruits are nutritionally closer to eating broccoli or carrots than starfruit or pineapple.

But if you're talking about the technical definition, then a fruit is a mature ovum, nuts and grains are subcategories of fruit, and vegetables are any edible part of a plant that isn't a fruit.

--Cliffy

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Cliffy

But if you're talking about the technical definition, then a fruit is a mature ovum, nuts and grains are subcategories of fruit, and vegetables are any edible part of a plant that isn't a fruit.

No, vegetable is a purely culinary term, not a botanical.

[lawbuff]

Originally Posted by Niteowl255

I just want to clarify something. So fruits ARE vegetable? Are they just a sub-category of veggies?

Reading that article I didn't come away with a clear understanding of either.

Here is an interesting case from memory. The SC was asked to decide whether a Tomato was a fruit or vegetable for Tariff purposes.


http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../304/case.html

[Darth Panda]

Vegetable is a culinary term.

Fruit can be either a culinary term or a botanical term.

Comparing the botanical definition of fruit to the culinary definition of vegetable is non-sensical.

[Cliffy]

Originally Posted by Floater

No, vegetable is a purely culinary term, not a botanical.

Yes -- I was careless there.

--Cliffy

[Chronos]

What I can't understand is why everyone always fixates on fruits for this question. People will say that "a tomato isn't really a vegetable; it's really a fruit". But nobody ever says "a carrot isn't really a vegetable, it's really a root", or "spinach isn't really a vegetable; it's really a leaf". All vegetables are parts of plants, and many different kinds of plant parts can be vegetables. Some vegetables are fruits, some are roots, some are leaves, and some are various other parts of plants.

[John W. Kennedy]

“Vegetable” is not an exclusively culinary (or dietary) term. It has been used in English to refer to non-animal life generally since the middle ages, and that is, in fact, the original meaning.

[johnpost]

as in "animal, mineral or vegetable?'

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

“Vegetable” is not an exclusively culinary (or dietary) term. It has been used in English to refer to non-animal life generally since the middle ages, and that is, in fact, the original meaning.

Has been and is do not mean the same thing. Do you have evidence that it is currently commonly in use as anything other than a culinary or dietary term?

[Floater]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

“Vegetable” is not an exclusively culinary (or dietary) term. It has been used in English to refer to non-animal life generally since the middle ages, and that is, in fact, the original meaning.

I should have added "in this context".

[Lumpy]

If you pluck it off the plant and eat it, it's a fruit. If you're eating the plant, it's a vegetable. Of course that means that pumpkins are fruits because they're picked off a pumpkin vine, but there you go.

[Chronos]

That definition would also make spinach a fruit.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Chronos

That definition would also make spinach a fruit.

Also parsley.

[blondebear]

This thread obviously needs a link to a certain Frank Zappa song.

[TriPolar]

I don't think I've ever met an adult who had a problem with this. Everybody seems to know that all plants are vegetables, and some of them have fruit. Everybody may not know a formal definition for fruit, but they have a pretty good idea, and it's pretty easy to explain. I just don't see this as a great mystery, or area of widespread ignorance either.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

Has been and is do not mean the same thing. Do you have evidence that it is currently commonly in use as anything other than a culinary or dietary term?

“Animal, vegetable, or mineral” has already been mentioned. Aside from that, the OED cites it as recently as 1978.

[moronpolitics]

"No, vegetable is a purely culinary term, not a botanical." Not being impolite I hope but so what? Vegetable still refers to a part of a plant that you eat which is not a fruit or nut. In THIS context, the context of the question the culinary definition is what matters. The questioner was obviously not a botonist or biology major. They were just asking what is the difference that causes some plant products to be called fruits and others called vegetables. Adding to the very good answer to which you took exception I would say that "fruit" almost always refers to SWEET objects that cover or contain the seed of the plant. Nuts are seeds covered with a hard shell. An apple or peach or mango is the typical "fruit". Things with result from a mature flower, but are not sweet are generally called vegetables even though they contain the seeds. Squash, pumpkins, eggplants (gross) and okra will almost always be called vegetables by almost everyone. I except botonists and other troublemakers, ok? Tomatoes cause some people to hesitate because they are soft like most fruits, but....well, most people decide... they aren't QUITE sweet enough so maybe they're a vegetable. I would say that tomatoes are the dividing line for most people. Now WOMEN contain the eggs, like the seeds of the next generation so is that why effeminate men are called fruits?

[eastcheap]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

Do you have evidence that it is currently commonly in use as anything other than a culinary or dietary term?

Vegetable dyes. Vegetable fibers. Vegetable tanning. Those are just the three that immediately popped into my head.

[Indian]

Originally Posted by moronpolitics

"No, vegetable is a purely culinary term, not a botanical." Not being impolite I hope but so what? Vegetable still refers to a part of a plant that you eat which is not a fruit or nut. In THIS context, the context of the question the culinary definition is what matters. The questioner was obviously not a botonist or biology major. They were just asking what is the difference that causes some plant products to be called fruits and others called vegetables. Adding to the very good answer to which you took exception I would say that "fruit" almost always refers to SWEET objects that cover or contain the seed of the plant. Nuts are seeds covered with a hard shell. An apple or peach or mango is the typical "fruit". Things with result from a mature flower, but are not sweet are generally called vegetables even though they contain the seeds. Squash, pumpkins, eggplants (gross) and okra will almost always be called vegetables by almost everyone. I except botonists and other troublemakers, ok? Tomatoes cause some people to hesitate because they are soft like most fruits, but....well, most people decide... they aren't QUITE sweet enough so maybe they're a vegetable. I would say that tomatoes are the dividing line for most people. Now WOMEN contain the eggs, like the seeds of the next generation so is that why effeminate men are called fruits?

Me wonders why some men are called nuts.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by eastcheap

Vegetable dyes. Vegetable fibers. Vegetable tanning. Those are just the three that immediately popped into my head.

The word vegetable is an adjective in all of those instances, and we're talking about the noun.

[Tarwater]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

Do you have evidence that it is currently commonly in use as anything other than a culinary or dietary term?

When people refer to a hospital patient as a "vegetable," they're not remarking on his suitability for being incorporated in a stew.


EDIT:

The word vegetable is an adjective in all of those instances, and we're talking about the noun.

Those phrases are compound nouns. In each, the word "vegetable" is a functional part of the noun. It's not like "big" or "amazing" or "tall."

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Tarwater

When people refer to a hospital patient as a "vegetable," they're not remarking on his suitability for being incorporated in a stew.

Quite true. But hopefully people aren't thinking that this definition of vegetable would be an option when deciding whether something like a tomato is a vegetable.

Originally Posted by Tarwater

Those phrases are compound nouns. In each, the word "vegetable" is a functional part of the noun. It's not like "big" or "amazing" or "tall."

Not according to the dictionary.com:

adjective
6.
of, consisting of, or made from edible vegetables: a vegetable diet.
7.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of plants: the vegetable kingdom.
8.
derived from plants: vegetable fiber; vegetable oils.
9.
consisting of, comprising, or containing the substance or remains of plants: vegetable matter; a vegetable organism.
10.
of the nature of or resembling a plant: the vegetable forms of art Nouveau ornament.

You can see that they included vegetable fiber in there as an example of when vegetable is an adjective.

But I don't want to belabor the point. I guess all I was trying to say is that when the this comment was made:

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

“Vegetable” is not an exclusively culinary (or dietary) term. It has been used in English to refer to non-animal life generally since the middle ages, and that is, in fact, the original meaning.

was that vegetable was no longer commonly understood to have that meaning.

I think this cite kind of shows that:

6. rare any member of the plant kingdom

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegetable

Hopefully, we can at least agree that rare does not mean common.

Looking back, what I should have said was that I don't think anyone could find evidence of the word vegetable currently being commonly used to mean "non-animal life generally."

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

Not according to the dictionary.com:

Nothing is “according to...dictionary.com”; dictionary.com is an aggregator. What you’re actually citing is collinsdictionary.com. I’ll stick with the OED.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Nothing is “according to...dictionary.com”; dictionary.com is an aggregator. What you’re actually citing is collinsdictionary.com. I’ll stick with the OED.

OED also lists vegetable as an adjective (in addition to being a noun of course). I included the cite I did because it happened to have a good example and was easy to link to. I must have missed the part where you provided a cite indicating that most people think that trees are vegetables. Unless your post is your cite.

[John W. Kennedy]

Sorry, but http://mostpeople.com is a dummy website.

[ukdave]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Sorry, but http://mostpeople.com is a dummy website.

That's OK; we're all dummies here...

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Chronos

What I can't understand is why everyone always fixates on fruits for this question. People will say that "a tomato isn't really a vegetable; it's really a fruit". But nobody ever says "a carrot isn't really a vegetable, it's really a root", or "spinach isn't really a vegetable; it's really a leaf". All vegetables are parts of plants, and many different kinds of plant parts can be vegetables. Some vegetables are fruits, some are roots, some are leaves, and some are various other parts of plants.

People fixate on the "fruits" because of the construction "fruits and vegetables," which suggests equivalent categories. The idea that something is "really" a fruit even if we call it "vegetable" (the botanical false-correction of the culinary usage) can fit into this conception. But if a vegetable isn't a fruit, no further analysis is called for, under the common formula; there's no other place to put it.

The bolded part is certainly logical, but I think the only way to push that logic into the present language would be to start talking about "fruit vegetables" as the equivalent category to "root vegetables," "leafy vegetables," and so on. Or, of course, to drop the "vegetable" part and just speak of eating fruits, roots, leaves, etc. I'll support you in whichever approach you take.