Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessriedel | Hacker News Reader

No, if that were true then using a suppository would be "eating". Dictionary definition definitely implies food/nutrition.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eat

There are non-nutrition definitions, but those concern wear/destruction of a large object by a small object, not engulfment of small object by large object.

View on HN

[ define eat ] -> put (food) into the mouth and chew and swallow it.

We say, for example, "the child ate the book" even if the book wasn't nourishment.

Obviously using a suppository isn't eating, because you don't eat with your butt. Unless you're Cartman.

The nanowire isn't food. So by that definition, it still isn't "eating."

"Ingestion" would be a more apt term imo, as it unambiguously applies to more than just food. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingestion

Does someone with a feeding tube eat?

I was on a feeding tube at 17 years old, and the doctor referred to it as "a way to absorb nutrients without eating".

That explains why my dog doesn't understand me when I tell her not to eat the furniture, or rocks. I should just tell her, "don't take in any more rocks!"

You should explain simply that this is not food. Poor dog does not know any difference. Also check if doggy gets enough minerals. :)

That should work, once she understands that she is embarrassing herself and showing a poor command of language by eating non-food, she'll stop!

(It's something she grew out of, like eating logs if they were rotten enough. I don't know if she had pica or was just an even more enthusiastic chewer than the usual puppy)

William S. Burroughs did a piece where a suppository might be construed as eating. [warning crude]: https://www.google.com/webhp#q=William+S+Burroughs+the+man+w...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com