Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:41 pm EDIT: Actually, it looks like they aren’t the same thing at all; ‘canola’ can come from several different Brassica species, while ‘rapeseed’ is from Brassica rapa alone.

Wikipedia disagrees. One, rapeseed is B. napus. Two, "Brassica napus is a digenomic amphidiploid that occurred due to the interspecific hybridization between Brassica oleracea and Brassica rapa." And three, canola is derived from B. napus, B. rapa, and/or B. juncea. An agricultural site notes that "most canola varieties grown in the U.S. are Brassica napus."

Canola was developed to be low in erucic acid and glucosinolates (which can be toxic in quantity), but it's not accurate to say they "aren't the same thing at all"-- if you buy "rapeseed oil" in the UK, you're buying canola oil, and that's likely true in Australia too as the original rapeseed oil was toxic.

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:58 pm One, rapeseed is B. napus.

Whoops, so it is.

Two, "Brassica napus is a digenomic amphidiploid that occurred due to the interspecific hybridization between Brassica oleracea and Brassica rapa."

Interesting, but I don’t see how this is relevant.

And three, canola is derived from B. napus, B. rapa, and/or B. juncea. An agricultural site notes that "most canola varieties grown in the U.S. are Brassica napus."

This is the same as what I said. The point is that this means canola oil is different to rapeseed oil, which should be from only B. napus.

Canola was developed to be low in erucic acid and glucosinolates (which can be toxic in quantity), but it's not accurate to say they "aren't the same thing at all"-- if you buy "rapeseed oil" in the UK, you're buying canola oil, and that's likely true in Australia too as the original rapeseed oil was toxic.

Perhaps, but that’s just a branding issue, one of many. (cf. the way people sell gabbro rock as ‘granite’, which is incorrect from a technical point of view.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:12 pm Interesting, but I don’t see how this is relevant.

B. napus is already a hybrid, and canola is (or can be) a hybrid.

And three, canola is derived from B. napus, B. rapa, and/or B. juncea. An agricultural site notes that "most canola varieties grown in the U.S. are Brassica napus."

This is the same as what I said. The point is that this means canola oil is different to rapeseed oil, which should be from only B. napus.

So rapeseed is B. napus, and US canola is B. napus. That is, exactly the same species. You said they "aren’t the same thing at all".

Canola was developed to be low in erucic acid and glucosinolates (which can be toxic in quantity), but it's not accurate to say they "aren't the same thing at all"-- if you buy "rapeseed oil" in the UK, you're buying canola oil, and that's likely true in Australia too as the original rapeseed oil was toxic.

Perhaps, but that’s just a branding issue, one of many. (cf. the way people sell gabbro rock as ‘granite’, which is incorrect from a technical point of view.)

This doesn't really make sense. The stuff on the shelf in Britain can be called rapeseed oil or canola oil-- so long as the toxin level is low, which it will be because it's not so great to sell toxins. It is technically true that it's rapeseed. It's also technically true that it's canola.

Technicians don't own language, people do. But the better analogy would be crop almonds and wild almonds. The wild almond is toxic; this has been bred out of the domesticated plant. The original rapeseed oil was used as an industrial lubricant.

In any case, all this is a response to Raphael's comment: one might expect a new term to develop for an unfortunate homonym, and that's exactly what happened.

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:37 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:12 pm Interesting, but I don’t see how this is relevant.

B. napus is already a hybrid, and canola is (or can be) a hybrid.

Huh? This isn’t the case at all; you don’t get canola by breeding together a bunch of different plants to get a hybrid. You get canola by mixing together a bunch of different oils from different species, one of which incidentally happens to be the product of hybridisation.

And three, canola is derived from B. napus, B. rapa, and/or B. juncea. An agricultural site notes that "most canola varieties grown in the U.S. are Brassica napus."

This is the same as what I said. The point is that this means canola oil is different to rapeseed oil, which should be from only B. napus.

So rapeseed is B. napus, and US canola is B. napus. That is, exactly the same species. You said they "aren’t the same thing at all".

No, rapeseed is B. napus, and US canola is B. napus or B. rapa or B. juncea. OK, perhaps ‘not the same at all’ was a bit strong… but the two clearly aren’t the same.

Canola was developed to be low in erucic acid and glucosinolates (which can be toxic in quantity), but it's not accurate to say they "aren't the same thing at all"-- if you buy "rapeseed oil" in the UK, you're buying canola oil, and that's likely true in Australia too as the original rapeseed oil was toxic.

Perhaps, but that’s just a branding issue, one of many. (cf. the way people sell gabbro rock as ‘granite’, which is incorrect from a technical point of view.)

This doesn't really make sense. The stuff on the shelf in Britain can be called rapeseed oil or canola oil-- so long as the toxin level is low, which it will be because it's not so great to sell toxins. It is technically true that it's rapeseed. It's also technically true that it's canola.

Perhaps it would be best to say it like this: all commercially sold rapeseed is canola. But not all canola is rapeseed; some of it can be other plants.

Technicians don't own language, people do.

True, but on the other hand, we’re having a technical discussion.

But the better analogy would be crop almonds and wild almonds. The wild almond is toxic; this has been bred out of the domesticated plant. The original rapeseed oil was used as an industrial lubricant.

I’m a bit confused here; what point are you trying to make with this analogy?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:47 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:37 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:12 pm Interesting, but I don’t see how this is relevant.

B. napus is already a hybrid, and canola is (or can be) a hybrid.

Huh? This isn’t the case at all; you don’t get canola by breeding together a bunch of different plants to get a hybrid. You get canola by mixing together a bunch of different oils from different species, one of which incidentally happens to be the product of hybridisation.

Where are you getting that from?

Honestly, we're both probably googling a bunch of sites about it and neither of us is an expert. But e.g. here is a site that describes the first canola oil as a genetic modification of B. napus-- i.e. rapeseed. Apparently oils derived from the other species can be called canola, but most of the canola oil in the US and Canada is in fact from B. napus. I haven't seen any site that says that canola oil itself is a mixture. I haven't even seen anything that says where the other species are used-- this site suggests that British products are all B. napus too.

But the better analogy would be crop almonds and wild almonds. The wild almond is toxic; this has been bred out of the domesticated plant. The original rapeseed oil was used as an industrial lubricant.

I’m a bit confused here; what point are you trying to make with this analogy?

wild almonds : crop almonds :: rapeseed : canola

Thank you, interesting discussion!




Why is it that in US English, before 1920, places that served alcohol were called "saloons", while after 1933, they were called "bars"? Was that, perhaps, a linguistic cosmetic change meant to reassure people who were wavering about whether to support repeal of Prohibition, by promising them that repeal would not mean the return of the saloon, which many people still hated? Did "saloons" still have too much of an image problem after decades of Prohibitionist campaigns for the people running them to start using the word again?

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 12:16 amWhy is it that in US English, before 1920, places that served alcohol were called "saloons", while after 1933, they were called "bars"? Was that, perhaps, a linguistic cosmetic change meant to reassure people who were wavering about whether to support repeal of Prohibition, by promising them that repeal would not mean the return of the saloon, which many people still hated? Did "saloons" still have too much of an image problem after decades of Prohibitionist campaigns for the people running them to start using the word again?

Where are you getting evidence for 1933 as the switchover point? The Google n-gram of "saloon" shows the usage peaking in 1909 and going into a steep decline thereafter, which actually tipped up in the 20s before declining again.

The main pre-Prohibition temperance lobby in the USA was literally called "the Anti-Saloon League", so that probably didn't do much for the term's associations. I also wonder if there was a certain rural/urban divide with the term "bar" being seen as more sophisticated and thus gaining ground at the expense of its more rusticated cousin. ("Saloon" now has Old West connotations for most North American English speakers.)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:46 am Where are you getting evidence for 1933 as the switchover point? The Google n-gram of "saloon" shows the usage peaking in 1909 and going into a steep decline thereafter, which actually tipped up in the 20s before declining again.

Oh, ok, then I stand corrected. I've been reading up a bit on Prohibition lately, and I've got the impression that when modern history books discuss alcohol drinking culture in the USA in the decades leading up to Prohibition, they pretty much always talk about "saloons". That surprised me a bit at first, because the word "saloon" has strong Old West connotations in Germany, too, so it was a bit weird to read about, say, the old saloons of New York City. At the same time, I don't think I've ever seen or heard any place after 1933 called a "saloon", except if it is or was explicitly Old West themed. All that taken together left me with the impression that the USA closed saloons in 1920 and opened bars in 1933.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 11:52 amAll that taken together left me with the impression that the USA closed saloons in 1920 and opened bars in 1933.

I don't think that impression is wrong exactly; "saloon" got an evil reputation. In his announcement about ending Prohibition, Roosevelt asked "that no State shall, by law or otherwise, authorize the return of the saloon, either in its old form or in some modern guise." He wanted people to buy liquor only in "duly licensed agencies"— a practice which still exists in some states.

This Smithsonian article goes into some (but not enough!) detail on names. "Bar" is actually quite old, going back to the 16th century. The Smithsonian suggests that drinking-only establishments were saloons (taverns served food), but that "bars" were high-end establishments, e.g. in hotels.

It's not so clear why "saloon" declined so fast in the 1910s, but naturally this would be the high point of the Anti-Saloon League. A campaign that made heavy use of anti-German prejudice, by the way.

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 11:07 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:47 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:37 pm

B. napus is already a hybrid, and canola is (or can be) a hybrid.

Huh? This isn’t the case at all; you don’t get canola by breeding together a bunch of different plants to get a hybrid. You get canola by mixing together a bunch of different oils from different species, one of which incidentally happens to be the product of hybridisation.

Where are you getting that from?

The Wikipedia article, which I now realise I misread. Though the essential point remains: canola can be derived from any of three different species, one of which is rapeseed.

But the better analogy would be crop almonds and wild almonds. The wild almond is toxic; this has been bred out of the domesticated plant. The original rapeseed oil was used as an industrial lubricant.

I’m a bit confused here; what point are you trying to make with this analogy?

wild almonds : crop almonds :: rapeseed : canola

Except it’s not that simple, because it’s possible to have canola which isn’t derived from rapeseed at all.

As an aside to all this, I don't think "canola (oil)" replaces "rapeseed" but rather "rapeseed oil". On containers of canola oil, the ingredient is listed as rapeseed, and canola as a word by itself means the oil. Maybe it will be extended to the seeds in the future. (Unless there are places where rapeseeds are listed as canola seeds or the like, but I haven't seen that as of yet, nor heard of it.)

linguistcat wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:17 am As an aside to all this, I don't think "canola (oil)" replaces "rapeseed" but rather "rapeseed oil". On containers of canola oil, the ingredient is listed as rapeseed, and canola as a word by itself means the oil. Maybe it will be extended to the seeds in the future. (Unless there are places where rapeseeds are listed as canola seeds or the like, but I haven't seen that as of yet, nor heard of it.)

I've seen many places in which canola has been used to refer to rapeseed the plant rather than just rapeseed oil myself.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:37 am

linguistcat wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:17 am As an aside to all this, I don't think "canola (oil)" replaces "rapeseed" but rather "rapeseed oil". On containers of canola oil, the ingredient is listed as rapeseed, and canola as a word by itself means the oil. Maybe it will be extended to the seeds in the future. (Unless there are places where rapeseeds are listed as canola seeds or the like, but I haven't seen that as of yet, nor heard of it.)

I've seen many places in which canola has been used to refer to rapeseed the plant rather than just rapeseed oil myself.

Agreed. You can definitely find people saying "Canada is planting more acres of canola than ever before," and such.

It's very convenient to have a word for something that isn't both a homophone and homograph of another word referring to one of the most deplorable forms of violence known to humankind.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:17 am It's very convenient to have a word for something that isn't both a homophone and homograph of another word referring to one of the most deplorable forms of violence known to humankind.

Rapeseed has gone the route of niggardly.

It seems so. I actively avoid both words.

In basketball, is there a single word, term, or expression that describes every "scoring event", not matter whether the player scores 1, 2, or 3 points?

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:41 am In basketball, is there a single word, term, or expression that describes every "scoring event", not matter whether the player scores 1, 2, or 3 points?

I'm not a Sports Person TM but I've always been under the impression it was "(making) a basket."

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 9:20 am

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 11:07 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:47 pmI’m a bit confused here; what point are you trying to make with this analogy?

wild almonds : crop almonds :: rapeseed : canola

Except it’s not that simple, because it’s possible to have canola which isn’t derived from rapeseed at all.

If i may ask, what canolas are made from other plants? (by 'other', i mean plants not of its genus)

linguistcat wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 5:38 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:41 am In basketball, is there a single word, term, or expression that describes every "scoring event", not matter whether the player scores 1, 2, or 3 points?

I'm not a Sports Person TM but I've always been under the impression it was "(making) a basket."

*nods* I've heard both "(name) got a basket" as well as "(name) scored!" with the latter sometimes followed by how many points or what sort of move led to the scoring.