Loads of vegetables are fruits: tomatoes, peppers, cucumber, courgette, aubergine, squash of all kinds. And at least one kind of fruit is a vegetable: rhubarb.
I agree.
I open a stupid thread about what counts as clothing and you guys have absolutely turned my world upside down. I’m not even sure who I am as a person.
Knowledge is being able to say a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is not using it in a fruit salad.
I for one am neither a fruit or a vegetable. If I become the latter my wife knows my wishes. And I think calling someone a fruit is both offensive and passé.
I stand corrected on purses. Which my dad carried on vacation although he usually called it his “bag”. He used terms like “fruit.”
I am still suspicious that clothing as social signaling was there from the very moment the first person put an article of clothing on.
FWIW.
gathered data on clothing from 50 small-scale ethnohistoric hunter-gatherer societies, along with information on their environments, economies, social structures, and demographics. With these data, I tested several hypotheses that may predict cross-cultural variation in clothing complexity: the Environmental Hypothesis (primarily related to thermoregulation); the Economic Hypothesis (related to subsistence and movement patterns); the Social Hypothesis (related to sexual dimorphism, freedom, polygyny, and violence); and the Population Hypothesis (related to population size and density). Results indicate that temperature and related variables are the primary drivers of wardrobe richness and clothing complexity, but male-male competition plays an important role in predicting richness of decorative clothing.
Though others may side with Dr. Larson’s counter-theory.
I’m sure that’s true. I’ve read that when sheep are marked, with spray paint, bells, etc., the sheep are very cognizant of who is wearing what. I can’t imagine that humans would be less aware of the social implications of clothing than sheep are. But humans use lots of different things for social signaling, including words, paint, gifts, details of their dwellings, and yes, also clothing. That social signaling is a feature of clothing doesn’t, IMHO, mean that it contributes to the definition of clothing.
Clearly not good enough. A shirt is definitely clothing, but if the Emperor were wearing nothing but a shirt, the kid would still deride him.
What, then, counts as “covering”? If I wear a T-shirt underneath my button-up shirt, in such a way that the T-shirt is not at all visible, is the T-shirt still clothing? Without it, exactly as much would be covered as with it. Or if I wear one T-shirt over another, such that both have the same extent, is the outer shirt, the inner one, or both “covering” my torso?
On the handbag question, I would agree that a handbag can be part of an outfit, but that not all parts of an outfit are necessarily “clothing”. Though there are certainly still edge cases: A fanny pack, for instance, is closer to being clothing than a handbag is.
All the fruits we eat are vegetables, because a vegetable is just any edible plant part. And there are plenty of other things besides rhubarb that aren’t botanically fruits but which are culinarily treated as such, like strawberries, sweet potatoes, and hibiscus flowers.
Orca sometimes wear a salmon on their head. The reasons are unclear because Orca aren’t very open with humans about their personal habits but it’s unlikely they consider it to be protection.
Apes have been seen putting a large leaf on their head in the rain. It may simply be protection from the rain but apes act enough like humans that they could also be signaling they are more clever than apes with wet heads.
Solitary humans may have used simple protective clothing without any social signaling but I find it difficult to believe that while being seen by other humans they weren’t immediately aware of the social aspect of changing their appearance.
Uh …
Anyway yes the food meaning is different than the botanical one. Context.
In the Kalahari - kinda. Not as class markers, just gender and age stratification - adults wear the kaross, but only girl children wear one, not boys.
Note that what they say there about chiefs wearing special karosses doesn’t apply to the Bushmen (San), who don’t have chiefs.
Was that supposed to link to a particular paper? It links to a whole list of papers for me.
“Would I feel naked without this?”
I’d bet the guys who wear penis sheaths and little else would say: “Yes.”
So, it’s clothing, even if it’s not cloth, skin, fur etc.
I don’t feel naked without a jersey but I still consider it clothing when I put it on.
You jest, but I have, in fact, been served tomato in a fruit salad. Bali, Indonesia, in a small village off the well-beaten track (as much as you can get off that track in Bali… which is not much)
I can only assume that this was unusual and served because we were foreigners. It was pretty good! This is also, in Jogjakarta (mainland Java) where I was served an avocado cappuccino. Pretty good,
My favourite thing about Indonesian clothing is the sarong - I think we in the west use the word incorrectly to refer to a sheet of cloth used to wrap the body, whereas the sarong in indonesia is a tube of cloth. There are numerous advantages, not least of which is that a spare sarong can be used as a baby carrier by hanging off one or both shoulders.
When you get to places like Flores (small Indonesian island, with high volcanic peaks), the sarongs are also used as sleeping bags, being made from a thicker material than the more common commercial cotton
A bit like a great kilt, I guess, which is both clothing and a blanket.
This reminds me of the time I was on a Grand Jury, and a case came up regarding an “assault weapon”. Since we here have endless discussions of this stuff I asked “what’s the definition of an assault weapon?” What followed was the most awkward 5 minutes of my life as a room full of jurors sat while the ADA read off a list of 10,000 (est.) brands and models of firearms NJ considers “assault weapons”.
If you want a concise definition of something, there will be grey areas and edge cases. If you want a bulletproof definition (ha!) be prepared to sit and wait for the definition to be laid out in excruciating detail (by someone other than me).
That aside, if you’re wearing a shirt under another shirt, what is the purpose of the inner shirt? I’d suggest it’s to cover your body with one layer of fabric, so that a second covering of fabric can then be worn. You’re not wearing the undershirt for the purpose of carrying an extra shirt around, you’re wearing it because it covers your body with fabric, even if that fabric isn’t visible.
Huh. For me it showed as the abstract. Here’s the pdf. Sorry.
What is the bigger question being asked here? I swear I’m not trying to be a dick, but what insight is the answer to this question meant to provide, if any? Like if we come to a satisfactory definition whereby A, B, and C count as clothing, but X, Y, and Z do not, we can therefore conclude…what?
I’m gonna nitpick you on the sweet potatoes, and probably on the hibiscus flowers. I don’t usually hear the latter referred to, but I’d call them edible flowers, not fruits. And I hear/see sweet potatoes referred to all the time, and I’ve never heard anybody refer to them as a fruit.
Now back to arguing about clothing –
I’m not sure there is a bigger question; I think we’re just curious about what each other considers to be clothing, and find it interesting that there are differences of opinion, and what those differences are. What’s the “bigger question” when we talk about recipes, or TV shows?
But if there is one – this thread is an offshoot from one that was discussing the possible origins of wearing clothing; and it is indeed difficult to discuss such origins without understanding what the word means.
As the OP I didn’t have one! But yes I “what is clothing” is fundamental to why and what functions motivated its adoption. And under what circumstances a de novo group of humans would create it or not.
From what I’ve gathered the function of decoration of the body preceded the protection of it by other than shelter. (Ochre paints.) I don’t think of this as looking for any great insight, but I wonder about the sequence. The standard presumption is that clothing served the function of protection first, with decoration and status added onto it as a secondary function. I still wonder if … accessories (pouches and such) came first with clothes defined as items that cover emerging to complement them, at least as much for decorative and signaling value as for protection from word go. After all, how much protection does a loincloth give? A bit less uncomfortable sitting on a rough or cold surface maybe?