cactus as a tree?

[Laurence Horn]

On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:45 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

> On 3/10/2012 1:12 AM, Victor Steinbok wrote:
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society<ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Victor Steinbok<aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
>> Subject:      cactus as a tree?
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Even though Tim Egan qualifies it as a description objected to by some,
>> I am wondering if there is /anyone/ who would consider a cactus a tree.
>> This is not a "technically, tomato is a fruit" issue. So, technically,
>> "technically" is also wrong here IMO.
>>
>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/the-trees-are-all-right/
>>> The saguaro cactus, with its droopy, anthropomorphic limbs, is the
>>> signature tree of the Southwest, though some say it is not technically
>>> a tree.
>>
>> Is Egan just making this up or am I being uninformed?
>>
>>      VS-)
>>
>
> Look through these and tell me what you see.  Saguaro, Cholla, Joshua
> (Maybe not).
>
Hey, they call it a Joshua tree, not a Joshua "tree".  Of course, it could be argued that despite its moniker a Joshua tree is no more a tree than peanut butter is butter. And then there's phone sex.  But still.

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org