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>