Jump to content

Talk:Fig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Common fig)

Because billygoat

[edit]

I noted now the reverse of my modification from goat to billygoat. I precise first of all that my change is due to a specific reason, and not a joke.

The term "capro" certainly derives from the Latin but it is certainly in current use and has arrived in the English world from Italian, where the term "capro" means exactly the male of the goat. In fact, the goat (female) is written "capra" (final"a").

The meaning, despite the small diversity of the ending, is really huge, as in English the difference between dog and bitch (also in translated meaning). In this case the "capro" represents precisely the masculinity of fertilization, represented in a tree, which, unlike the female, does not produce fruit. The term equivalent to "capro" (male of the goat) has been used in pre-Christian Mediterranean religions as a positive symbol of masculine vigor, and this has been preserved in current Italian culture.

Other uses of the term (frequently in worst sense ..l) have been used for other current or of the past contexts, as also in other sense it is used bitch in English. Please consult: http://www.grandidizionari.it/Dizionario_Italiano/parola/C/capro.aspx?query=capro http://dictionaries.corriere.it/damico_italiano/C/capro.shtml

It: Scalin2 Scarlin2 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fig which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

64% or 62%?

[edit]

various percentages regarding largest producers; also various tonnages; where to find annual world wide raw data? link to 'world cartel' of producers?

Howard from NYC (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ornamental plant

[edit]

@Sbishop: I still can't see a significant claim of ornamental use in #Modern section. Even if there is some ornamental use (yeah, it's evergreen and is kind of nice plant to have in your backyard; but I haven't seen it sold in decorative plant nurseries like several of its Ficus relatives), I think it's quite marginal compared to its economic importance as foodstuff. Therefore, it's undue to mention in the lead paragraph per MOS:LEADREL, and I'm still inclined to remove it as a minor aspect. Do you agree? No such user (talk) No such user (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind this aspect being removed the lead, I agree it isn't a significant use for the plant compared with its culinary one. Sbishop (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]