Message Forum: Re: The chewing gum question

Re: The chewing gum question

Posted By: knivetsil, on host 68.57.76.43
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 15:22:06
In Reply To: Re: The chewing gum question posted by knivetsil on Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 15:20:14:

> > No. The connotation of the word is GUM. The sticky object in my MOUTH. Not the trace nutrients that possibly reside within it.
>
> I'm going to have to disagree with that. The trace nutrients are part of the gum, not some random stuff that just happens to be in it. Without the sugars, it isn't gum. Gum is composed of gum base plus sugars and whatnot. Without the sugars and whatnot (which you ingest and digest, just as you would food), you just have gum base, which is not quite gum.
>
...which brings me to the point that the connotiation of the word is GUM, but the trace nutrients are not excluded from that connotaion, as they are part of the gum.

> knivetsil

Post a Reply

RinkChat Username:
Password:
Email:		(optional)
Subject:
Message:	> > > No. The connotation of the word is GUM. The sticky object in my MOUTH. Not the trace nutrients that possibly reside within it. > > > > I'm going to have to disagree with that. The trace nutrients are part of the gum, not some random stuff that just happens to be in it. Without the sugars, it isn't gum. Gum is composed of gum base plus sugars and whatnot. Without the sugars and whatnot (which you ingest and digest, just as you would food), you just have gum base, which is not quite gum. > > > ...which brings me to the point that the connotiation of the word is GUM, but the trace nutrients are not excluded from that connotaion, as they are part of the gum. > > > knivetsil
Link URL:		(optional)
Link Title:		(optional)

Make sure you read our message forum policy before posting.