lugal
@lugal@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on Found this from a while back and it’s so funny to me. 1 week ago:
A while back? The screenshot says “3 days ago”. At least keep your story straight
- Comment on Let's math it out, quick 1 week ago:
I’m neither a Brit nor a calendologist but I think it’s somewhere at the end of June or a few days later, not sure. Hope that helps
- Comment on 1 week ago:
You don’t think it has something to do with the energy consumption?
- Comment on adult 1 week ago:
A plant raised for some edible part of it, such as the leaves, roots, fruit or flowers, but excluding any plant considered to be a fruit, grain, herb, or spice in the culinary sense, and usually including non-plants lumped into the same culinary category, such as edible mushrooms and seaweed.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vegetable
usually herbaceous plant (such as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part that is usually eaten as part of a meal
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegetable
it may include savoury fruits such as tomatoes and squash, flowers such as broccoli, and seeds such as pulses, but exclude foods derived from some plants that are fruits, flowers, nuts, and cereal grains.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable
I have never used dictionary.com but it’s so full of adds that it’s hard for me to take it seriously
- Comment on adult 1 week ago:
Fruit also has a cultural (culinary) definition
Yes, that’s why I broad up the German translation where there are different terms for the technical (Frucht) and cultural (Obst) definition
vegetable also has a technical definition (probably more than one)
Can you elaborate? In which context(s) is the technical one applied and what exactly is it?
- Comment on adult 1 week ago:
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.
- Comment on adult 1 week ago:
It describes any edible plant
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.
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. - Comment on adult 1 week ago:
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.
- Comment on Add a layer of mystery and fun to any funeral 1 week ago:
“I apologize, I mean, I’m sorry for your loss”
- Comment on laughs in 12 hours, while still driving through texas 1 week ago:
Bavaria, Hessen, Niedersachsen and Hamburg
- Comment on There's a black-face festival, exactly as it sounds it's people wearing masks and painting theirs faces to make fun of black people, it's a national tradition in Ecuador 2 weeks ago:
So are there festivals like this mocking other people groups?
- Comment on The customer is always right 2 weeks ago:
Interesting…
- Comment on no one can understand AI 2 weeks ago:
If this is true then everything is fine.
Edit: Damn, I’m part of the problem, right?
- Comment on You are undecided on buying a house. But this convinces you to buy it 3 weeks ago:
I didn’t notice because it wasn’t red
- Comment on Go ahead. You know you want it 3 weeks ago:
Admit it: you just offered it because you knew he would reject
- Comment on Logical 4 weeks ago:
- Comment on Life comes at you fast! 4 weeks ago:
If you want a linguistic deep dive how this isn’t correct:
- Comment on Hopefully you haven't 4 weeks ago:
I saw a drawing of that tree. Does that count?
- Comment on Delicious 4 weeks ago:
Now you want our opinion on garlic bread?
- Comment on I Guess It Really Wasnt 4 weeks ago:
That doesn’t answer the question because all roses belong to the genus “Rosa”. So there is a common ancestor of all roses and every plant descendent of that ancestor is a rose by definition. I ask you for a definition of Roman that exists independent of the word and you have me an example that does have a definition that exists independent of people using the word. Romans, on the other hand are biologically indistinguishable from other humans. They look, smell and taste the same (allegedly).
The difference is that Roman is an identity marker and therefore a social construct. That doesn’t mean it’s not real. It’s like asking for a home no one ever lived in. Before construction, there is no house, just stone or wood or what ever. You could point to a cave and say “that could be a home” but it’s not a home unless someone lives there. A home doesn’t exist outside social reality. It might have different names but it needs humans it identity it as such.
For identity markers, the name is much more tied to the construct. The name can change tho. The first Christians didn’t identify as such. In fact, the word started as an insult and was later reclaimed. But you can trace back a social group that later grew to identity as Christians.
It’s not that a social group came to decide they need a city and than built Rome and live there happily ever after. I’m not sure but I guess it was a settlement that grew or sever settlements that merged or something but at no point was there a social group that meaningfully preexisted the city.
Same with modern nationalities. There is nothing biological that differentiates Germans from its neighbors. Just a nation state that invented German identity and everything distinctly German came later.
- Comment on Post it to socials 4 weeks ago:
That’s what I thought but apparently “shit” is metaphorical, I still don’t really get it
- Comment on Post it to socials 4 weeks ago:
Please don’t post the screenshot in this community. Worst mistake of my life
- Comment on I Guess It Really Wasnt 4 weeks ago:
What does that mean to you? What is the essence of being Roman that preexisted the name?
- Comment on I Guess It Really Wasnt 4 weeks ago:
The question is if they were considered and/or identified as Romans before there was a city called Rome
- Comment on WHAT? 4 weeks ago:
Gen Alpha slang is beyond me
- Comment on Insensitive 5 weeks ago:
Can confirm, I was the Uber driver
- Comment on No use denying it when they have a witness 5 weeks ago:
Finally found him
- Comment on 180 Degree Rule 5 weeks ago:
I’m a bit faceblind so this might be a stupid question: Is the same character speaking in every frame? Which is which? I’m confuse
- Comment on .🤨. 5 weeks ago:
Can you cite these passages? Because from my memory, when he’s praying alone, the content of his prayer isn’t recorded and that barely happens at all. There are other things that show that the gospels aren’t historical but please stick to the facts
- Comment on I say both. 5 weeks ago:
Even with gills, the mouth is where they breath in
