Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 08:10:28 -0500 From: "Dennis R. Preston" 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