Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I do not see anything wrong with the dictionary's sentence.
I'll even go further and say, "That fruit basket contains citrus fruit, pitted fruit, pineapple fruit, breadfruit, and bananas."
BTW, the Google Ngram viewer has 18,200 entries for "fruit are" from 1-1-1965 to 12-31-2000. That period has less than half the rate of the full two centuries to which the viewer defaults. (I realize there could be many duplicates in the number quoted.)
Emmett
Fruit happens like this:
1--Fruit as an article:
A fruit is on the plate, an orange.
Two fruits are on the plate, one an orange, the other mango.
2--Fruit as a kind of fruit:
A fruit is selected for our new planet, and we pick orange.
Two fruits are selected for our new planet, orange and mango.
3--Fruit as different from other things:
Fruit is down the aisle from meat.
Fruits are down the aisle from meat.
4--Fruit as metaphor:
Fruit/Fruits of out labors.
Your dictionary definition fits category 2 above: fruits.
pith: a white substance just under the outside skin of oranges and similar fruits.
I would like to know, which dictionary?
Criminy, you all missed the obvious: In Rafee's dictionary sentence, "fruit" was used in the uncountable sense. Improperly, I would say if anyone asked, but that's how I read it.
Remember countables and uncountables? A singular fruit, or plural fruits, are countable, each one a discrete object. But you can also say "there's some fruit there in the bowl; help yourself", and in that sentence "fruit" is uncountable.
Personally I would argue that Rafee's dictionary should have said "...oranges and similar fruits", because I don't think it really meant "fruit" in the uncountable sense. But I think that's how the writer used the word, nonetheless.
So, I think, based on what Emmet said, that 'fruit' as a plural noun refers to some fruits (or fruit?!--OK, those things we eat, and you know what ), but has no reference to their kinds, but 'fruits' does.
I also think that to choose between the word is sometimes depending on what you want to say, and sometimes on who you are and how you wish to say, or maybe on both at the same time.
(My original thought was like RobertB's)
For example, you may say:
Fruit are all wholesome. (Refers to them as a whole)
( I don't know how logical or necessary this is to be though!)
Fruits are all wholesome. (Implies classification inside the whole)
(In this case, it seems that the choice depends on how you want to say the same thing.)
BTW, the dictionary was Longman Advanced Learner's Dictionary of American English. The same definition could also be found on Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English website-ldoceonline.com
What about the construction of this sentence, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23 KJV? (ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, WYC, YLT, and others have a similar construction.) The noun and verb are singular but the predicate noun is multiple.
Did these translators get the English construction right? If so, how?
Similar, "the fruit of my loins is Emmily and Nathan." Is this right as well?
Emmett
Fruit of the Loom is underpants. (singular verb, plural predicate)
I always took the singular form of fruit to be a collective singular when followed by a plural predicate. It is not much different from result or product or reward in the following:
I worked all day and the result was a clean house, a clean garage, and a substantial donation to the homeless shelter.
The reward of our extraordinary team effort was greater recognition, more money, camaraderie and, most of all, self-satisfaction.
The product of their collaboration was 14 operettas.
May be so if the reader is in the mood to sympathize and be understanding. But a belligerent person with a mind given to sabotage and logic distortion and deliberate misunderstanding could spuriously but rightly insist that 'the result' is associated wih only the closest to it of the 4 items, which is 'a substantial donation.' Or, maybe even a reasonable person could think that too.
That may be as you say, RobertB, but what are the other two?
The singular use may happen when one is naming a set of things. (This may help us get something). Suppose this situation:
(A bit of a silly example)
The teacher is speaking about the Spirit. A student asks, "What's the fruit of the Spirit?" (No doubt here that the single form is correct).
But then, the teacher begins to name the fruits: The fruit of the Spirit is...(period of thinking)...looove (you know how words are stretched when thinking)...(is) joooy... (is) peeeace... .
Well, the example denotes that there is something omitted here_ the 'is' in parentheses. Or it, the omitted part, may even be 'The fruit of love is'.
This is what happens in normal speech. So, maybe, if the teacher wanted to reshape the sentence and make it more formal, s/he would say, "The fruits of the Spirit are 1. love 2. joy...".
Have you ever noticed that some discussions may, inevitably, from the viewpoint of the debaters, go so far away from the normal thinking areas that may seem quite absurd to someone observing? 🙂
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)