There are 2 different categorization systems - botanical and culinary. Both are valid systems for their topic, but ONLY for their one topic. Calling a tomato a vegetable is the correct answer for cooking, but the incorrect answer for botany, and vice versa.
There’s no such thing as a culinary vegetable.
huh?
you tellin me celery is an illusion?No, although that’s also true. I’m saying celery isn’t a culinary vegetable, because there’s no such thing as culinary vegetables. Nothing is a culinary vegetable.
Vegetable is just a word we made up for “plant parts we eat”, excluding sweet fruit.
although that’s also true
???
Yep. And I think it’s a useless word. There’s no point calling plants vegetables when it comes to cooking.
Strip your Ms from your wikipedia links before you share them please. Also this article is garbage. It doesn’t cite any sources for its core ideas. The only 4 references are descriptions of particular plants. There’s no citations in the introduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptids
Here’s the wikipedia page for list of cryptids. This page is better cited and has more evidence for what it says than your page. Does that mean cryptids are real? No, cryptids are fictional just like culinary vegetables.
The first sentence of your article says cryptids aren’t real, vegetables do exist and we interact with them every day. I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. If someone tells you their name is Bob but fails to cite a source that does not mean Bob doesn’t exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetable#Terminology
We interact with botanical vegetables every day. We don’t interact with culinary vegetables, because there’s no such thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetable#Terminology
Posting this link again because you didn’t read it.
Culinary vegetables unarguably exist since we’re referring to a physical thing which indisputably exists. I have seen a courgette before, I can confirm vegetables do in fact exist. You’re arguing that they don’t exist because you disagree with the words used to refer to them, which is also wrong. The fact many people use the culinary definition of vegetable when referring to courgettes means that the culinary definition of vegetable is correct; language is defined by how it’s used.
Vegetables exist. The culinary definition of vegetable also exists. The fact you don’t like that definition is irrelevant.
A courgette isn’t a culinary vegetable.
I might as well argue I have direct physical evidence that Bigfoot exists, because my friend Steve has big feet so he’s clearly a sasquatch.
You’re being pointlessly pedantic. Language has a purpose, and it depends on the context.
You don’t bite into a fresh tomato on a warm summer day?
Actually i do
I love the specificity of this
*syconium
I know some of those words.
Fig, Fruit, Flower, Fucking…
Beets, bears, Battlestar Galactica.
