No, they aren’t. Fruit describes a part of a plant, vegetable is defined in a cultural way and by the way they are consumed. So there is an overlap (including tomatos, zucchini, pumpkin, …) but most fruits aren’t vegetables. When we say “fruit”, we think of those fruits that are sweet and eaten raw or in cake or marmalade, …
German has two words that can be translated into fruit: Frucht is the part of the plant and Obst is a social category of fruits that are sweet and you would expect in a fruit salad. So tomato is Frucht but not Obst.
Who uses such a broad and meaningless definition? Are nuts also vegetables? What about rice, pasta, buckwheat? Herbs? What about plants that are edible but we don’t eat at all like many flowers? You can’t just use the first ad hoc definition you come up with as absolute proof.
Vegetables is a broader and higher classification of food. It describes any edible plant
It refers to leaves, roots, stems, stalks, seeds, pods
It even refers to fruits other than tomatoes, e.g. peppers, squash, okra, corn, peas… all fruits, some even berries
If we wanted, right now, we could ALL just decide to start naming another subclass of vegetables, let’s say roots are now called beebles
Well now it’s fruits, vegetables, and beebles. If this were a trinary of equal classifications, then we’d all swear NO YOU FOOL, POTATOES AND RADISHES ARE NOT VEGETABLES!!! THEY ARE DAMN BEEBLES!!!
I think you meant to say “any edible part of the plant”. Pretty sure the poisonous fruits of potatoes aren’t vegetables.
It even refers to fruits other than tomatoes, e.g. peppers, squash, okra, corn, peas…
I already gave a few examples, you found even more. Yes, there is overlap as I said.
all fruits, some even berries
Berries in the botanical sense I guess. That does mean that all fruits are vegetables. This is like sending a photo gallery of red houses and saying “see, all houses are red”
If we wanted, right now, we could ALL just decide to start naming another subclass of vegetables, let’s say roots are now called beebles
Why even make a new word up? They are called roots. And quite a number of roots are vegetables. But would you eat the root of an apple tree or of wheat? There are vegetables that are fruits and vegetables that are roots and vegetables that are leaves. Sometimes we even eat the stem or the flower. Still there are many we don’t consume like leaves of tomatoes or roots of cucumber. Still others we consume in a different way. You Most people wouldn’t consider nuts as vegetables just because other seeds are (like some of your “fruit” examples). Same with tea leaves. There are leaves that are vegetables but that doesn’t make rooibos a vegetable. Same with herbs. Botanically not very different but used in a different way. The fact that zucchini is a fruit that happens to be a vegetable doesn’t mean all fruits are. That’s a logical error of categories I think.
yeah but fruits are a type of vegetable.
No, they aren’t. Fruit describes a part of a plant, vegetable is defined in a cultural way and by the way they are consumed. So there is an overlap (including tomatos, zucchini, pumpkin, …) but most fruits aren’t vegetables. When we say “fruit”, we think of those fruits that are sweet and eaten raw or in cake or marmalade, …
German has two words that can be translated into fruit: Frucht is the part of the plant and Obst is a social category of fruits that are sweet and you would expect in a fruit salad. So tomato is Frucht but not Obst.
Fruit also has a cultural (culinary) definition, and vegetable also has a technical definition (probably more than one)
Yes, that’s why I broad up the German translation where there are different terms for the technical (Frucht) and cultural (Obst) definition
Can you elaborate? In which context(s) is the technical one applied and what exactly is it?
vegetable is the edible part of a plant. dont tell me a fruit is not an edible part of a plant.
Who uses such a broad and meaningless definition? Are nuts also vegetables? What about rice, pasta, buckwheat? Herbs? What about plants that are edible but we don’t eat at all like many flowers? You can’t just use the first ad hoc definition you come up with as absolute proof.
Vegetables is a broader and higher classification of food. It describes any edible plant
It refers to leaves, roots, stems, stalks, seeds, pods
It even refers to fruits other than tomatoes, e.g. peppers, squash, okra, corn, peas… all fruits, some even berries
If we wanted, right now, we could ALL just decide to start naming another subclass of vegetables, let’s say roots are now called beebles
Well now it’s fruits, vegetables, and beebles. If this were a trinary of equal classifications, then we’d all swear NO YOU FOOL, POTATOES AND RADISHES ARE NOT VEGETABLES!!! THEY ARE DAMN BEEBLES!!!
And that… just sounds so silly
I think you meant to say “any edible part of the plant”. Pretty sure the poisonous fruits of potatoes aren’t vegetables.
I already gave a few examples, you found even more. Yes, there is overlap as I said.
Berries in the botanical sense I guess. That does mean that all fruits are vegetables. This is like sending a photo gallery of red houses and saying “see, all houses are red”
Why even make a new word up? They are called roots. And quite a number of roots are vegetables. But would you eat the root of an apple tree or of wheat? There are vegetables that are fruits and vegetables that are roots and vegetables that are leaves. Sometimes we even eat the stem or the flower. Still there are many we don’t consume like leaves of tomatoes or roots of cucumber. Still others we consume in a different way.
YouMost people wouldn’t consider nuts as vegetables just because other seeds are (like some of your “fruit” examples). Same with tea leaves. There are leaves that are vegetables but that doesn’t make rooibos a vegetable. Same with herbs. Botanically not very different but used in a different way. The fact that zucchini is a fruit that happens to be a vegetable doesn’t mean all fruits are. That’s a logical error of categories I think.