Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

>         To call a sort of fruit 'poison-apple', you must have a reason.
> Here, we speak of vocabulary, more exactly (for 'poison-apple') conscious
> invention of vocabulary. Obviously 'poison-apple' isn't good to name
> tomatoes, but it can't be anything else than a conscious invention, so it's
> not language.
Actually not.  Raw tomatoes contain toxic levels of oxalic acid, but it
so happens that they contain another ingredient which prevents the
body from absorbing the oxalic acid, thus making them safe to eat.
(The leaves, as with most Solanaceae, are still deadly.)
I believe it was around 1850 that Europeans discovered this!

So it's not *that* unlikely that a name like "poison-apple" might
stick even after it was found to be false.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)