I sometimes become confused when it comes to looking up the definitions of plants or fruits' names.

Let's take the example of “Mango” which denotes both, fruit and a tree in its definitions from Oxford:

1. A fleshy, oval, yellowish-red tropical fruit that is eaten ripe or used green for pickles or chutneys.

2. The evergreen tropical Indian tree that bears the mango.

So regarding this, I ask that why do we need to add the word "tree" in “Mango” (e.g. Mango tree) if the “mango” itself denotes a tree. Similarly, I ask other questions like:

Neem or Neem tree?

Guava or Guava tree?

Orange or Orange tree?

Apple or Apple tree?

Most clearly, if I remove the word “tree” from Mango, for instance, it looks ambiguous that does not clarify wether I am referring to a fruit or a tree:

“He is cutting mango.” [it's not clear, is he cutting tree or a fruit? ... and regarding this I ask that if it looks ambiguous after removing the word "tree" then why do the definitions say that it denotes both, the fruit and a tree?]

  • 3
    I’m not sure exactly what your question is here. Why do we add tree to clarify that we’re talking about the tree? As you say yourself, to clarify that we don’t mean the fruit. Do you consider that an inadequate answer? Additionally, we often add tree even if there’s no ambiguity: it’s perfectly common to talk of oak trees, holly trees, and birch trees even though these trees don’t have what we’d traditionally call ‘fruits’ of the same name (oaks have acorns, hollies have poisonous berries, and I don’t even know what to call birch fruits). – Janus Bahs Jacquet Dec 27 '18 at 11:28
  • 1
    And it's not confined to trees. We say both tuna fish and tuna, both beetroot and beet, both hound dog and hound. – Peter Shor Dec 27 '18 at 11:32
  • 2
    @Ahmed all of the examples in Oxford for def. 2 say "mango tree" instead of just "mango". It's very misleading; in my opinion Oxford should have classified this usage as an adjective, because "mango" is an adjective in the phrase "mango tree", and "mango" is almost never used alone to refer to the tree (unlike "oak", "cypress", etc). I assume you would only see it alone in academic texts, with very clear context that it refers to the tree: (e.g. "Another famous Indian evergreen tree is the mango.") – Andy Dec 27 '18 at 15:35
  • 3
    @Andy an adjective? I'd argue the word "mango" when used with the word "tree" is more likely a component of the compound noun "mango tree" – HotelCalifornia Dec 27 '18 at 18:00
  • 3
    @Andy It’s not an adjective; it’s a noun. It fails every adjective test I can think of. The reason we’re more likely to add tree on to mango than to oak is simply that in most of the Anglosphere, the fruits are infinitely more common than the tree, meaning that the primary association to the word mango itself is to the fruit. The fact that it’s nearly always used attributively doesn’t make it an adjective. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Dec 27 '18 at 21:04

Me? I say "apple tree" for the plant, and "apple" for the fruit. Likewise for mango, lemon, coconut, walnut, etc.

But if we're only talking about a particular variety of apple then the term "tree" may be omitted, but it's not a given, e.g. "cox's orange pippin"

Cox’s Orange Pippin Apple has been an English institution for over 150 years. It arose as a chance seedling in the 1820s in the orchard of a retired brewer named Richard Cox, near the present-day location of Heathrow Airport. It’s a yellow apple with a red blush, which makes it appear orange—hence, the “Orange” part of its name. The “Pippin” part of its name is an old English word for an Apple Tree grown from a seed, or “pip.” Cox’s Orange Pippin wasn’t made available to other growers until the 1850s, and it wasn’t grown commercially until the 1860s, but once it finally became known, it won the hearts of a nation. (source)

Oak, Ash, Birch, Beech, Pine, Sycamore, and Willow, etc. are well-known trees, we don't normally speak about their fruits, so actually saying "oak tree" is a bit redundant.

Below are images of different trees taken from Wikipedia, note that when the fruit is commonly known, the noun "tree" is needed as in “lemon tree” and “walnut tree” whereas “Beech” and “Cypress” do not require it.

enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here enter image description here

  • 2
    And, as always, there are exceptions. In New Zealand it is 'kiwi fruit' to distinguish it from the kiwi, a flightless bird. – NZD Dec 28 '18 at 0:26

Obviously, when referring to a tree which has the same name as a fruit or other product obtained from it, you need to make it clear that you mean the tree and not the product. "I leaned my back against an oak" (a line from a folk song) is not ambiguous, but "I leaned against an apple" would be. However, if you were pointing to trees in an orchard you could perfectly well say "That's an apple and that's a pear".

  • 8
    We do this all the time. Apple means the fruit, Apple means the tree, Apple means the company, Apple means the flavor of the fruit. Apple means a color, sometimes green and sometimes red! – already puzzled Dec 27 '18 at 11:18
  • 3
    It is not adding the word tree that is happening, but the removing of it. Apple fruit is shortened to just Apple. Apple tree is shortened to just Apple. I bite into an Apple and people can make an assumption that I didn't try to eat my phone. We just put the necessary parts into the words to convey the message and leave the rest out. – already puzzled Dec 27 '18 at 11:26
  • 4
    @Ahmed The word "mango" can denote either the fruit or the tree. Most of the time, that's not a problem because it's clear from context which you're talking about. If you say, "I ate a mango", people will assume you mean the fruit and not the tree. But if you really did eat a mango tree, you can indicate it by saying, "I ate a mango tree". Lots of words have more than one meaning and where that creates confusion, a speaker or writer has to choose other words that clarify to avoid confusing readers and listeners. – David Schwartz Dec 27 '18 at 11:36
  • 2
    @Ahmed "why do the definitions say that it denotes both" - because that is how the word is used. Language isn't logical. – alephzero Dec 27 '18 at 12:24
  • 6
    In my opinion, "apple tree" can't be shortened to just "apple", except in a highly contextualised example like your orchard. Usually "apple" by itself must mean the fruit, not the tree. You can't say "I leaned against an apple". – TonyK Dec 27 '18 at 15:11

Most plants have a principal use. Its noun in isolation refers to that principal implied use. If it is not meant that way then a specific description is added to refer to its other attribute.

Mango refers to the fruit and mango tree or mango leaf are other non principal descriptors. If mango is cut it is in a kitchen for eating rather than an outdoor activity of cutting a branch of it using an axe.

Oak, Pine refer to their timber and if a landscape is referred to, it mentions oak tree or pine cone.

Whiskey is the alcoholic liquid drink but we refer to whiskey bottle, whiskey smell when referring to these in particular.

Tea or coffee are the beverages but we can have tea/coffee aroma or tea/coffee plantation or trade.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.