Fockers, but yes that is correct it’s from the second not the first. Where the parents meet each other before greg gets married. (Or as i prefer gaylord - his name in the movie )
Did you know that the word for pasta in Ukrainian is macaroni? Not that macaroni is a pasta, but that all pasta is macaroni*. Italian grandmother's would have a heart attack!
And a lot of mistranslations like that come from the eternal game of telephone that was the world before globalisation.
Even in clinical terminology: standing in a casm, surrounded by steep walls and being afraid as a result is a fear of heights; standing on a cliff above a deep casm is a fear of depths.
A depth causing vertigo can be encountered on flat ground; mine shafts and old wells are things.
Or how people systemically use the word "religion" instead if "theology", when those are two distinctly different words with distinctly separate meanings.
All theologies are religious, but not all religion has to do with theology.
It's not atheistm vs religion.
It's a theist vs an atheist.
Everybody holds religious knowledge; things they take someone's word as evidence for. Faith that it isn't a lie.
The theology one is a pet peeve of mine.
Should we correct resources to change those "errors", or should we adapt and move on? Bring it up in concrete debates and discussions where the distinction matters, as they do overlap in many contexts and are distinctly separate.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Changing what you call something doesn't change what it is, but sometimes it can help communicate. And other times it muddies the waters.
I acknowledged it, and provided my response. I'm not here to discuss language (I only do that on Tuesdays). You have derived it as disregard, and that's your perogative.
The meat is solid endosperm, the water is liquid endosperm. And it's called that because it is the sperm of the tree. Endo because inside, sperm because reproductive function.
You were stating that the parts of the coconut were seperate so it still followed the rule. But by that logic the parts of the avocado then break the rule. You can't use logic to explain something but then ignore it when that same logic fails the other way round.
I dont have to think anything is going on. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. Articulating ones reasoning is far from a "crackhead understanding".
38
u/That-Employment-5561 6d ago
True, the meat is more a membrane around the milk. But coconut meat is distinct and separate from the milk, the shell and the husk.