My 6-year old started a debate last night about the difference between fruits and vegatables. The distinction that he and my wife came up with is that if the item in question has seeds, then it is a fruit. My own opinion is that for practical purposes, there is no actual distinction between fruits and vegatables and that the distinctions we see are based on usage and not much else.
I am sure that some of the learned members of the SD out there can share a bit of horticultural wisdom and enlighten, no?
A scientist considers a fruit to be something very specific: an enlarged part of a plant where seeds grow. Vegetable is used to refer to any plant matter, whether food or not.
In general use, a fruit is a sweet enlarged part of the plant where seeds grow. Thus, some things that scientists consider fruits (tomato, cucumber, pepper) are considered vegetables by the general public.
*All * linguistic distinctions are based on usage and not much else. However, the sweet/nonsweet distinction between edible plant products is a clear one in English.
You’re right, essentially, in that there is not really a firm definition.
All fruits that we eat could equally be described as vegetables, based on the dictionary definition, “any of various herbaceous plants having parts that are used as food”.
But not all fruits are vegetables - poisonous berries, for instance - unless you use the broad “not animal or mineral” definition.
The botanical definition of a fruit is indeed “the ripened ovary of a flowering plant, containing one or more seeds” (from Collins English Dictionary). However, the second and more general sense is “any fleshy part, other than the above structure, that supports the seeds and is edible, such as the strawberry”.
So, basically, all edible fruits are vegetables, and some vegetables (eg tomatoes) are also fruit.
I agree (mostly, anyway) with the analysis of Colophon and RealityChuck. Despite what online dictionaries may say, there’s no clear, bright line distinction between these terms in common usage. I don’t think the sweet/non-sweet distinction always works, either. Lemons and certain berries aren’t sweet, and some tomatoes and corn are.
Believe it or not, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered this issue. It held that the distinction lies in what part of the meal the item is commonly eaten with (or in). Along with the main course? Vegetable. Afterwards, as a dessert? Fruit.
So if I have me a nice leg of lamb with figs, say, or a curry with sultanas in (not that I’d likely do the latter, as it is an abomination), then these fruits become vegetables?
Neither of these are common combinations in the US, and were certainly less common in 1893. But as I understand the holding of the case, if the most common uses of sultanas (I forget what we call those here) and figs were as you describe, then, yes, they’d be vegetables.
More generally, though, you’ve identified the main flaw in the court’s distinction. American dining practices are far more varied then they were in 1893, and fruit-like items are no longer restricted to the dessert course.
That would mean watermelon, cantelope and grapefruit are vegetables.
Then we have carrotcake, sweetpotato pie, banana bread. Where does it end?! Ouch! My head hurts now.
My understanding is that a vegetable is the edible leaf, stem, or root of a plant, whereas a fruit is the part with the seeds, edible or not. And just to confuse matters further, a tomato is technically a berry (although I find I can no longer remember WHY.)
I put salt on watermelon - and I eat cantaloupe with prosciutto. The contrast of sweet and salty flavors eaten at the same time enhances both. Salt on lemons, grapefruit, limes (margaritas, anyone?) and my personal favorite, Granny Smith apples mellows the bitterness without detracting from the delightful tanginess.
Technically, a fruit is the fruiting body by which a plant reproduces, while a vegetable is a portion of the vegetative growth keeping the plant alive and supporting the reproductive function. (I like that definition because it contains inherent mnemonics.)
Salt on papayas is the only thing that makes them edible, IMHO.
Rhubarb is a vegetable. What else could it be? It’s the stalk of a plant. No seeds anywhere near it (in fact, once the plant produces a seed stalk, the rhubarb is useless for eating), and it’s not sweet until you add lots and lots of sugar and strawberries.
But - what’s sugar? It’s the dried and powdered sap that comes from the stalk of the sugar cane plant, right? No seeds. Ergo, SUGAR IS A VEGETABLE!
