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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This article is about the vegetable. For other uses, see Zucchini (disambiguation).
In cookery, it is treated as a vegetable, usually cooked and eaten as an accompaniment or savory dish, though occasionally used in sweeter cooking.
A 1928 report on vegetables grown in New York State treats ‘Zucchini’ as one among 60 cultivated varieties of C. pepo.
In France, zucchini is a key ingredient in ratatouille, a stew of summer vegetable-fruits and vegetables prepared in olive oil and cooked for an extended time over low heat.
In 2005, a poll of 2,000 people revealed it to be Britain’s 10th favorite culinary vegetable.
1
: a usually herbaceous plant (such as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part that is usually eaten as part of a meal
also : such an edible part
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.
You don’t bite into a fresh tomato on a warm summer day?
Actually i do
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.
???
Yep. And I think it’s a useless word. There’s no point calling plants vegetables when it comes to cooking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegetables
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 clearly didn’t bother to read anything I wrote (or you completely lack reading comprehension), but I’ll give it one more shot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zucchini
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegetable
You’re being pointlessly pedantic. Language has a purpose, and it depends on the context.