3 ms·
"Seafood, edible aquatic animals, excluding mammals, but including both freshwater and ocean creatures." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Picking words apart and appl
by rags2riches 6y ago
"Seafood, edible aquatic animals, excluding mammals, but including both freshwater and ocean creatures." Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Picking words apart and applying literal interpretations to their component is often a bad idea. Language rarely works that way.
- neonate 6y agoTotally agree, but GP may not be a native speaker.
- Angostura 6y agoThat's a bizarre definition: Cambridge English dictionary: "animals from the sea that can be eaten, especially fish or sea creatures with shells" Merriam Webster: "edible marine fish and shellfish" These are much more reasonable definitions, more line with modern usage. I doubt you will find any dictionaries that mirror your Britania definition.
- nightski 6y agoI grew up in and have lived near the land of 10,000 lakes (MN) almost my entire life and not once in my 35+ years of life has anyone referred to fish out of those lakes as seafood. Ever. In fact people around here I feel would be utterly confused if you did. I wouldn't fault him with not following Encyclopedia Britannica exactly.
- zrobotics 6y agoHuh? In MN, WI and the upper peninsula of Michigan I have sat in multiple restaurants that had a seafood section in the menu that proudly claimed fresh caught (insert nearest great lake) fish. Maybe not so much in Central Minnesota, but I have definitely seen this in Duluth, and I doubt that the average Minnesotan would be confused by calling lake fish seafood. Although if we are being truly pedantic I suppose that the great lakes would more properly be considered inland seas.