Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 08:10:28 -0500
From: "Dennis R. Preston" preston[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]PILOT.MSU.EDU
Subject: Re: candy bars and measurements
M. Lynne Murp[hy asks:
candy bars
i was a bit surprised to find that "candy bar" is not in any of my
american english dictionaries, since, for me, this is not entirely
compositional in meaning. candy bars are chocolate bars (or bars
involving chocolate at least on the outside, like a mars bar or a kit
kat). it would be weird (for me) to refer to a bar of licorice or
nougat or peanut brittle as a "candy bar." do others share this
intuition? or is a chocolate bar a prototypical candy bar, but
the others are still candy bars? (maybe my intuitions are fading.)
and is there any part of the u.s. in which "candy bar" is not used?
In the dim past, before I discovered Cabernet Savignon, I ate candy bars. I
remember eating one horror called a 'Baby Ruth.' It had an (UGH!) peanut
covering and, as I recall, no chocolate at all. I agree it might be less
'prototypical' than such putatively chocolate but tasteless abominations as
the 'Three Musketeers,' but it was, nevertheless, a 'candy bar.' Shape and
packaging seem to be nearly as important as other factors (except, of
course, for the ubiquitous gob of sugar). Looks like a victory for fuzzy
sets and prototypes to me.
Odd, however (at least to me) is the fact that 'candy bar' is not a subset
of the class 'candy.' I would have to go up to the higher class 'sweets' to
include both.
Dennis who-don't-eat-no-candy-no-more Preston
preston[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]pilot.msu.edu