Berry Club by J.L. Westlover (@mrlovenstein)
Fun fact: strawberry was admitted to the psychiatric yard once pepper and cucumber joined the berry club.
Fun fact: the psychiatric yard is where the psych ward doctors are allowed to go outside and play for an hour everyday, and where a psychologist is most likely to be shanked by a psychiatrist.
Bananas and watermelons are berries? Huh.
The scientific definition of a berry is a fleshy fruit that came from a single ovary in the flower. Thats it. I don’t even know why they used the name berry on this term because it makes no sense and I tell you this as someone studying botany. Like none of the nuts you know are true nuts either. If a nuts shell opens on its own it’s not a nut so peanuts, walnuts and almonds are not nuts because if you plant these in fresh soil they will sprout and the shell opens. However if you plant a fresh hazelnut the shell stays on while the plant germinates from the seed, hence it’s a true nut. So stupid I know. This has use in botany but these botanical definitions have no use for normal people. That’s why we talk about “botanical definitions” and “culinary definitions”. In the common culinary definition a berry is a small freshy fruit which is the definition you know.
Bonus: in botany everything from a flower is a fruit. That means wheat is a fruit, rice is a fruit, beans are fruits, peas are fruits, all nuts are fruits, every seed is a fruit, a pine cone is a fruit, and it just goes on. But no one in their right mind would make a fruit asket with pine cones right? The botanical definition is useless outside the field of botany.
we should be inventing new words. A fleshy fruit from a single ovary in a flower is now called a skibidi
Just to add random info/trivia: it’s interesting to note that this mess between “botanical fruit” and “culinary fruit” is largely language-dependent. In Portuguese for example it doesn’t happen - because botanical fruit is “fruto” (with “o”) and culinary fruit is “fruta” (with “a”).
So for example, if you tell someone that cucumber is a “fruto”, that is not contentious; you’re just using a somewhat posh word if you aren’t in a botanical context. And if you tell the person that tomato is a “fruta”, you’re just being silly.
Berry has no direct equivalent. If you must specify that the fruit comes from a single ovary, you call it “fruto simples” (lit. simple botanical-fruit), as opposed to “fruto múltiplo” (multiple fruit - e.g. pineapple). Popularly people will call stuff like strawberries and mulberries by multiple names, like “frutinhas” (little fruits) and the likes.
In German, the fruits you would put in a fruit salat are called Obst, in contrast to Frucht (fruit) / Früchte (fruits) which can be ‘anything’ complying with the botanical definition. You’d refer to tomatoes and paprika as Frucht-Gemüse (fruit vegetables).
Like none of the nuts you know are true nuts either.Found it funny that you then mentioned peanuts which grow in the ground contrary to all other things people think about when talking about nuts.
And yeah, I know I’ll just have blown some people’s mind with that info.
Huh… peanuts coming from underground is such an obvious memory for me I don’t recall where I learned it. It feels like something everyone just knows, like carrots, potatoes, and yams. It didn’t occur to me outside of today’s lucky 10000 that a lot wouldn’t know.
I wonder if its really aot of people or just some.
Fun fact: Strawberry is called an accessory fruit because its seeds are on the outside, so the seeds themselves are the real “fruits” (in the same way each grain of rice or wheat is itself a fruit, well technically the fruit consists of the grain plus the outer pod/husk that gets removed when harvested). The red flesh we like to eat is the accessory fruit because it in itself does not contain seeds.
Raspberries and blackberries are called aggregate fruits because they’re essentially many fruits attached together as a single structure. Actually, a strawberry is called an aggregate accessory fruit because it has many “fruits” directly attached to an accessory structure.
If every Uni professor started each lecture with "fun fact: " I bet I’d learn alot more
The thing is that the botanical definition of berries doesn’t match perfectly with the everyday definition. That doesn’t make the latter wrong, it just has other applications
Come up with an everyday definition for berry that includes strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries but excludes grapes, figs, and cherry tomatoes without identifying any particular fruit by name.
I could try to but I don’t need to. The fact that you could easily name some fruits that aren’t berries is proof enough that you have a concept of what a berry is and what isn’t. Coming up with a definition would be the next step.
So I agree that “definition” is the wrong word. I should have said “concept”. Besides: what’s wrong with definitions that are just a list of elements?
how about:
*berr*Are grapes not considered berries in the anglosphere? In Icelandic they literally are named “Wine berries” and considered as such.
More evidence than the concept of “an every day definition of berry” is completely meaningless
I mean, it isn’t meaningless, just culturally subjective and lacking a rigerous definition. Berries are a set of specific fruit, which fruit being included being determined by the culture in question base on percieved similarities and historic uses. We use it to quickly bring up the specific group and whatever vague characteristics we percieve them to share.
So, the definition for berries that you seek is simply “the fruit people you’re interested in would point at and identify as a berry”, which is a vague definition and not rigerous at all, but most people would in fact think of the same thing you do if you say “I put berries on top of my cake”. If I ask my wife “hey, on your way home swing by the store and buy some berries, any type will do”, she will not bring a watermelon. She in fact will buy what we both agree are berries, and so the word has useful meaning.
You’ll find most classifications humans have do this too. The real world is really good at refusing to fit into the neat boxes we made to classify it and the things in it, and yet we can still use them fine enough as long as we don’t get lost in semantics and wondering if a hot dog is a sandwich or cereal soup.
