# a box of sweets



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi, 

I'd like to know what "sweets" means as in "a box of sweets", particularly 
in American English. Does it necessarily mean "candy"? 

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## Myridon

In American English, "sweets" are practically any sort of sweet food.  Since we don't mean just candy, we don't say "a box of sweets."
I'm on a diet, so I'm not eating sweets.  (Cake, pie, cookies, candy, doughnuts, pastries, ...)


----------



## Keith Bradford

In British English, a box of sweets might contain any kind of confectionery; for example chocolates, hard boiled sweets, liquorice, jellies, *or *candy (a softer boiled-sugar confection).  Nowadays, it might even contain large boiled-milk confections from India or Pakistan.   It does not contain cake, pie, biscuits, doughnuts, pastries...


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> In American English, "sweets" are practically any sort of sweet food.  Since we don't mean just candy, we don't say "a box of sweets."
> I'm on a diet, so I'm not eating sweets.  (Cake, pie, cookies, candy, doughnuts, pastries, ...)



So a box of sweets could refer to a box of cookies, for example?
I am thinking about whether the container designation 'box' can influence how you interpret 'sweets'.


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> So a box of sweets could refer to a box of cookies, for example?
> I am thinking about whether the container designation 'box' can influence how you interpret 'sweets'.


I repeat: we don't say "box of sweets" in American English.


----------



## Myridon

Keith Bradford said:


> any kind of confectionery; for example chocolates, hard boiled sweets, liquorice, jellies, *or *candy (a softer boiled-sugar confection).


In American English, all these things are candy.  I'm not sure about the Indian confection as I haven't had it.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Myridon said:


> ...  I'm not sure about the Indian confection as I haven't had it.


You've missed a treat!

@Raymond #4 - The size or shape of box is irrelevant to the meaning.  Chocolates are typically in flat boxes, toffees often in taller ones, some mixed sweets in metal containers... all these are (BE) sweets or (AE) candies.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> I repeat: we don't say "box of sweets" in American English.




Are you suggesting cakes, cookies, and candies are not found in the same box? Is that why you don't say 'a box of sweets'?


----------



## JulianStuart

Here are two threads that explore the fine points of candy (AE) and sweets (BE)
Candies and sweets
Candy


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Are you suggesting cakes, cookies, and candies are not found in the same box? Is that why you don't say 'a box of sweets'?


In American English, the category of "sweets" (anything that is eaten or drunk because it is sugary) is so broad that it includes things that are entirely dissimilar.  A box with two scoops of ice cream and then filled with Coca-cola. 
It's generally only a category word. It would be rare (though perhaps it is used in some regions or dialects) to refer to a slice of cake as "a sweet" whereas in BrE (I believe) it's possible refer to a piece of candy as "a sweet."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> In American English, the category of "sweets" (anything that is eaten or drunk because it is sugary) is so broad that it includes things that are entirely dissimilar.  A box with two scoops of ice cream and then filled with Coca-cola.
> It's generally only a category word. It would be rare (though perhaps it is used in some regions or dialects) to refer to a slice of cake as "a sweet" whereas in BrE (I believe) it's possible refer to a piece of candy as "a sweet."



In Taiwan, it is common for guests at a wedding reception to receive a box of sweet foods containing candies and cookies individually packaged in packets. Would you refer to it as "a box of sweets"?


----------



## JulianStuart

From the Collins (BE) entry - two noted as "brit" i.e. used in BE not AE. Two distinct meanings


> •(often plural) brit  any of numerous kinds of confectionery consisting wholly or partly of sugar, esp of sugar boiled and crystallized (*boiled sweets*)
> •brit  a pudding, fruit, or any sweet dish served as a dessert*


The second one would not come as several in a box, so "box of sweets" refers to the first entry.
By the same token, "box of sweets" would not mean much in AE other than a box containing some sweet things

*possibly derived from the French _suite_ - as it follows the main course.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> From the Collins (BE) entry - two noted as "brit" i.e. used in BE not AE. Two distinct meanings
> 
> The second one would not come as several in a box, so "box of sweets" refers to the first entry.
> By the same token, "box of sweets" would not mean much in AE other than a box containing some sweet things
> 
> *possibly derived from the French _suite_ - as it follows the main course.



Sweet - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary


The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'sweets' as follows: 

1 
a [count] : *a food that contains a lot of sugar : a sweet food *
I'm trying to cut down on sweets. 

b [count] British : a piece of candy 
a bag of sweets 

c  [count, noncount] British : a sweet food served at the end of a meal : dessert 

Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English to refer to, for example, a box of candies and cookies. Note it is not the dessert sense you brought up.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Since sense 1a is not specifically designated as British, I am wondering why you wouldn't say 'a box of sweets' in American English to refer to, for example, a box of candies and cookies. Note it is not the dessert sense you brought up.


You could, but that situation would be more likely to use a different word - donuts, desserts, cakes, cookies, cupcakes etc


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> In Taiwan, it is common for guests at a wedding reception to receive a box of sweet foods containing candies and cookies individually packaged in packets. Would you refer to it as "a box of sweets"?





Myridon said:


> In American English, ... we don't say "a box of sweets."





Myridon said:


> I repeat: we don't say "box of sweets" in American English.


There is no box that I would refer to as a box of sweets.


----------



## JulianStuart

Myridon said:


> There is no box that I would refer to as a box of sweets.


Could you please be a bit more specific in your comment?


----------



## RM1(SS)

Myridon said:


> There is no box that I would refer to as a box of sweets.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I think I'm beginning to have an idea of how the word 'sweets' works in general American English.
It's a category word, much like mankind, so 'a box of sweets' does not make any more sense than, say, a group of mankind.
'A box of sweets' is understood as a box of candy by Americans, presumably because people have heard it from Brits a lot,
not because the word 'sweets' as used in general American English makes this reading available.

I'd welcome your feedback.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

That said, I've found that the word 'sweets' can be used to refer to other kinds of sweet food than candy or chocolates in British sources.

Consider the news caption from Reuters:

Eating in India: sweets | Pictures | Reuters

Boys who practice wrestling hold up *a box of sweets* in Chandigarh August 12, 2012. REUTERS/Ajay Verma/Files

So, I'm interested in whether the above represents how the Brits generally understand the word 'sweets'. Or is it South Asian English (a possibility that I don't place much faith in, as Reuters is such a prestigious British media group that any piece of news is supposed to be edited before being published)?


----------



## JulianStuart

Nope - that looks like Indian English, which is quite often different from other kinds of English.  (That link is to the India Edition of Reurters.)  BE would not refer to the things in that box as "sweets". Here is a link to a UK site advertising a "box of sweets".


----------



## Keith Bradford

JulianStuart said:


> ... BE would not refer to the things in that box as "sweets"...



Sorry, Julian, but that's exactly what we do call them, though we specify the origin.  For me (and I've eaten many a boxful from takeaways in Rusholme, Manchester) that's* "a box of Indian/Pakistani sweets"*.

See The Best 10 Sweet Shops near Rusholme, Manchester


----------



## velisarius

Me too, when talking about "Greek sweets" like baklavas. I think that these kinds of things used to be called "sweetmeats", but unfortunately that word is much too antique to be used today.

(Edit: "kinds".)


----------



## JulianStuart

Keith Bradford said:


> Sorry, Julian, but that's exactly what we do call them, though we specify the origin.  For me (and I've eaten many a boxful from takeaways in Rusholme, Manchester) that's* "a box of Indian/Pakistani sweets"*.
> 
> See The Best 10 Sweet Shops near Rusholme, Manchester


OK - that's different, when the context or you specify "Pakistani sweets" or "Greek sweets" etc.  You could also _technically_ call a box with half a dozen mini-apple crumbles a "box of sweets"
(sweet BRIT  a pudding, fruit, or any sweet dish served as a dessert)

(The link takes me to shops that are in the Yelp category "candy stores, desserts, Indian".  Perhaps, with increased immigrant integration, the general UK population has indeed changed its usage of "sweets" and I've been left behind )


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> OK - that's different, when the context or you specify "Pakistani sweets" or "Greek sweets" etc.  You could also _technically_ call a box with half a dozen mini-apple crumbles a "box of sweets"
> (sweet BRIT  a pudding, fruit, or any sweet dish served as a dessert)
> 
> (The link takes me to shops that are in the Yelp category "candy stores, desserts, Indian".  Perhaps, with increased immigrant integration, the general UK population has indeed changed its usage of "sweets" and I've been left behind )



I've found the following in the corpus of contemporary American English (COCA):

At the age of 21, I worked in corporate sales at Tech Electronics in St. Louis, selling phone systems. Then I moonlighted for a while and started with family recipes, testing them out on my clients and neighbors. We started doing mainly corporate gifts. The cookies and other *sweets* that we made were arranged in corporate gift boxes.


Pearland residents may be surprised to know that they have such a good coffee house in their midst...There's generally a good selection of pastries and other *sweets*. And if there isn't, then shame on you for not getting there quicker.


Mark Ballard grew up in a household where the favorite pastime was congregating in the kitchen to eat cakes, cookies, and other *sweets*.

Are these only examples of a category label?

BBC - Food - Collections : Homemade sweets

The BBC seems to regard macaroons and lemon and thyme cookies are 'sweets'.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I've found the following in the corpus of contemporary American English (COCA):
> 
> At the age of 21, I worked in corporate sales at Tech Electronics in St. Louis, selling phone systems. Then I moonlighted for a while and started with family recipes, testing them out on my clients and neighbors. We started doing mainly corporate gifts. The cookies and other *sweets* that we made were arranged in corporate gift boxes.
> 
> 
> Pearland residents may be surprised to know that they have such a good coffee house in their midst...There's generally a good selection of pastries and other *sweets*. And if there isn't, then shame on you for not getting there quicker.
> 
> 
> Mark Ballard grew up in a household where the favorite pastime was congregating in the kitchen to eat cakes, cookies, and other *sweets*.
> 
> Are these only examples of a category label?
> 
> BBC - Food - Collections : Homemade sweets
> 
> The BBC seems to regard macaroons and lemon and thyme cookies are 'sweets'.


Posts 2,5,6,10,15 and 17 have given pretty good feedback on the original question of how an AE speaker would understand "box of sweets".
From Keith's description for BE, I have learnt about the recent addition to the definition of the items from India or Pakistan but he does not use the term "box of sweets"  for a box containing "sweet dishes served as dessert."


Keith Bradford said:


> In British English, a box of sweets might contain any kind of confectionery; for example chocolates, hard boiled sweets, liquorice, jellies, *or *candy (a softer boiled-sugar confection).  Nowadays, it might even contain large boiled-milk confections from India or Pakistan.  _ It does not contain cake, pie, biscuits, doughnuts, pastries.._.



You have found some examples both of a different definition (sweet BRIT *a pudding, fruit, or *any sweet dish *served as a dessert) and examples of things that Americans refer to as candies.  The word sweet is versatile and differs in different locations/neighbourhoods.  Many of the "sweets" in the picture in your BBC link are not "sweet dishes served as dessert", but things an AE speaker would expect to find in a candy store, not on a dessert menu.  A BE speaker would put them in the confectionery category (it includes fudge, caramels etc). On that site are also items that could fall into the "sweet dish served as dessert" category.
Perhaps you can re-state your question if it remains unanswered")

* Kate Fox (in "Watching the English") has some interesting comments on this particular use of the word "sweet" to mean dessert - it is not used uniformly throughout BE society!


> The upper-middle and upper classes insist that the sweet course at the end of a meal is called the ‘pudding’ – never the ‘sweet’, or ‘afters’, or ‘dessert’, all of which are déclassé, unacceptable words. ‘Sweet’ can be used freely as an adjective, but as a noun it is piece of confectionery – what the Americans call ‘candy’ – and nothing else. The course at the end of the meal is always ‘pudding’, whatever it consists of: a slice of cake is ‘pudding’, so is a lemon sorbet. Asking: ‘Does anyone want a sweet?’ at the end of a meal will get you immediately classified as middle-middle or below.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> Posts 2,5,6,10,15 and 17 have given pretty good feedback on the original question of how an AE speaker would understand "box of sweets".
> From Keith's description for BE, I have learnt about the recent addition to the definition of the items from India or Pakistan but he does not use the term "box of sweets"  for a box containing "sweet dishes served as dessert."
> 
> 
> You have found some examples both of a different definition (sweet BRIT *a pudding, fruit, or *any sweet dish *served as a dessert) and examples of things that Americans refer to as candies.  The word sweet is versatile and differs in different locations/neighbourhoods.  Many of the "sweets" in the picture in your BBC link are not "sweet dishes served as dessert", but things an AE speaker would expect to find in a candy store, not on a dessert menu.  A BE speaker would put them in the confectionery category (it includes fudge, caramels etc). On that site are also items that could fall into the "sweet dish served as dessert" category.
> Perhaps you can re-state your question if it remains unanswered")
> 
> * Kate Fox (in "Watching the English") has some interesting comments on this particular use of the word "sweet" to mean dessert - it is not used uniformly throughout BE society!




Since you said 'sweets' in American English is a category label, I'm asking whether the examples from the COCA represent use of a category label. (And how do we distinguish a category label from a non-category label, by the way?)

And I'm not talking about the dessert sense of the word; the AHD gives the following senses of the word, not all of which
have to do with desserts. The COCA examples do not all have to do with desserts either.

n.
*1. *Sweet taste or quality; sweetness.
*2. *Something sweet to the taste.
*3. sweets
a. *Foods, such as candy, pastries, puddings, or preserves, that are high in sugar content.
*b. *Informal Sweet potatoes:candied sweets.
*4. *Chiefly British
*a. *A sweet dish, such as pudding, served as dessert.
*b. *A sweetmeat or confection.
*5. *A dear or beloved person.
*6. *Something pleasing to the mind or feelings.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Since you said 'sweets' in American English is a category label, I'm asking whether the examples from the COCA represent use of a category label. (And how do we distinguish a category label from a non-category label, by the way?)
> .


I don't even know what _you_ mean by category label (_I_ never used the term!)


----------



## Keith Bradford

I hadn't addressed the *sweet = dessert* issue, because it's never used in the context of a box.  You don't put flambeed Christmas pudding with brandy butter in a box - it would set it on fire!  You don't serve prunes and custard in a box - they'd seep through!  In Britain, the only sweets you'd put in a box are the ones we've identified above: chocolates, toffees, fruit jellies, humbugs, etc, and occasionally the smaller, dry Indian or Greek confectioneries.

Now, if you're talking about the last course but one of a traditional British meal - after the main course but before the cheese - that's a whole different topic.  It's called *pudding *in posh homes, *dessert *in restaurants and *sweet *or *afters *in not-so-posh homes.  Served usually on a plate or in a dish.  No boxes in sight.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> I don't even know what _you_ mean by category label (_I_ never used the term!)



It was Myridon who said it's a category word. I must have been confused.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Keith Bradford said:


> I hadn't addressed the *sweet = dessert* issue, because it's never used in the context of a box.  You don't put flambeed Christmas pudding with brandy butter in a box - it would set it on fire!  You don't serve prunes and custard in a box - they'd seep through!  In Britain, the only sweets you'd put in a box are the ones we've identified above: chocolates, toffees, fruit jellies, humbugs, etc, and occasionally the smaller, dry Indian or Greek confectioneries.
> 
> Now, if you're talking about the last course but one of a traditional British meal - after the main course but before the cheese - that's a whole different topic.  It's called *pudding *in posh homes, *dessert *in restaurants and *sweet *or *afters *in not-so-posh homes.  Served usually on a plate or in a dish.  No boxes in sight.




I am not interested in the dessert sense. It's irrelevant to what I want to talk about.
Anyway, thanks to advances in the food packaging industry, many food items such as cakes, preserves, and cookies can be individually packaged and be placed in a box. Would that qualify as 'a box of sweets' for you?


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Anyway, thanks to advances in the food packaging industry, many food items such as cakes, preserves, and cookies can be individually packaged and be placed in a box. Would that qualify as 'a box of sweets' for you?



No.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I've just found the following example. 

Some of those earliest memories show up in a trio of *sweets* -- - chocolate-covered peppermint patties, *peanut butter cookies* topped with dark chocolate kisses and cinnamon caramels -- - perfect for giving in a holiday gift tin. 

Note that this is also from the COCA. Obviously, a trio of sweets can include cookies, why can't a box of sweets include cookies (especially when they are individually packaged)?


----------



## heypresto

As Keith Bradford has painstakingly pointed out "In British English, a box of sweets might contain any kind of confectionery; for example chocolates, hard boiled sweets, liquorice, jellies, *or *candy (a softer boiled-sugar confection). Nowadays, it might even contain large boiled-milk confections from India or Pakistan. It does not contain cake, pie, biscuits, doughnuts, pastries..." and "In Britain, the only sweets you'd put in a box are the ones we've identified above: chocolates, toffees, fruit jellies, humbugs, etc, and occasionally the smaller, dry Indian or Greek confectioneries." 

A box of sweets would not include cookies, even if they were individually wrapped.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I am not interested in the dessert sense. It's irrelevant to what I want to talk about.
> Anyway, thanks to advances in the food packaging industry, many food items such as cakes, preserves, and cookies can be individually packaged and be placed in a box. Would that qualify as 'a box of sweets' for you?


I think the BE speakers are pretty clear on this - about as clear as the AE speakers Yes, the phrase "box of sweets" appears in both AE and BE. In BE it has a clear meaning (no desserts, cakes, puddings or cookies involved) while *AE speakers would have to guess the contents, because the phrase is not at all common. * So _you_ can use the phrase to describe whatever you like, but don't expect AE speakers to know what you mean without further details, and *BE speakers already know what they mean by the phrase.*


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> As Keith Bradford has painstakingly pointed out "In British English, a box of sweets might contain any kind of confectionery; for example chocolates, hard boiled sweets, liquorice, jellies, *or *candy (a softer boiled-sugar confection). Nowadays, it might even contain large boiled-milk confections from India or Pakistan. It does not contain cake, pie, biscuits, doughnuts, pastries..." and "In Britain, the only sweets you'd put in a box are the ones we've identified above: chocolates, toffees, fruit jellies, humbugs, etc, and occasionally the smaller, dry Indian or Greek confectioneries."
> 
> A box of sweets would not include cookies, even if they were individually wrapped.



But have you looked at his rationale, which was put forward after the above passage you've quoted?

His rationale is this:...You don't put flambeed Christmas pudding with brandy butter in a box - it would set it on fire! You don't serve prunes and custard in a box - they'd seep through!

Obviously, he was pointing out a container issue. Now that the issue can be resolved due to today's technology or does not arise in the case of certain sweet foods like cookies, why can't a box of sweets contain cookies? Any principled reason?

I'm just eager to find out reasonable answers. Please bear with me.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> I think the BE speakers are pretty clear on this - about as clear as the AE speakers Yes, the phrase "box of sweets" appears in both AE and BE. In BE it has a clear meaning (no desserts, cakes, puddings or cookies involved) while *AE speakers would have to guess the contents, because the phrase is not at all common. * So _you_ can use the phrase to describe whatever you like, but don't expect AE speakers to know what you mean without further details, and *BE speakers already know what they mean by the phrase.*



Thank you. That's useful!
Still, I'm still on the lookout for a principled reason, especially after I found the BBC's Homemade Sweets section includes
lemon cookies.


----------



## LVRBC

The reasonable answers are all used up - language is what it is and people from both sides of the pond have done their best to explain the different meanings or, in the case of AmE, non-meaning.  You can make up exceptions and personal meanings, but they will not be useful in communicating with English speakers.


----------



## heypresto

LVRBC said:


> The reasonable answers are all used up


----------



## JulianStuart

The BBC site you linked to is part of their "Halloween Collection" and asks: "Looking for *something sweet* to give to a special someone? You've come to the right place..."  They have collected a bunch of recipes for sweet things - note they did *not* use "Looking for *some sweets* to give to a special someone? You've come to the right place..."

One of the cookie recipes also makes the same distinction (using "sweet treat" not "sweet".) "These cookies keep well in the fridge in an airtight container. They can also be frozen individually and heated from frozen when you fancy a *sweet treat.
*
The support for using a "box of sweets" to refer to cakes, doughnuts and cookies seems pretty thin on the ground, but do let us know if you find a principled reason for such a very rare usage in either AE or BE


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> The BBC site you linked to is part of their "Halloween Collection" and asks: "Looking for *something sweet* to give to a special someone? You've come to the right place..."  They have collected a bunch of recipes for sweet things - note they did *not* use "Looking for *some sweets* to give to a special someone? You've come to the right place..."
> 
> One of the cookie recipes also makes the same distinction (using "sweet treat" not "sweet".) "These cookies keep well in the fridge in an airtight container. They can also be frozen individually and heated from frozen when you fancy a *sweet treat.
> *
> The support for using a "box of sweets" to refer to cakes, doughnuts and cookies seems pretty thin on the ground, but do let us know if you find a principled reason for such a very rare usage in either AE or BE



"Sweets" are necessarily something sweet. "Looking for something sweet to give to a special someone? " doesn't say much about whether 'cookies' are considered sweets, or why a box of sweets shouldn't contain cookies. After all, the title is *Homemade sweets.*


*
*


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "Sweets" are necessarily something sweet. "Looking for something sweet to give to a special someone? " doesn't say much about whether 'cookies' are considered sweets, or why a box of sweets shouldn't contain cookies. After all, the title is *Homemade sweets.*


Are you still trying to argue that "a box of sweets" could/should be interpreted as a "box of cakes and cookies" by a BE speaker or an AE speaker???  Or are you asking why it is not?

These are sweets in a sweet shop


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> Are you still trying to argue that "a box of sweets" could/should be interpreted as a "box of cakes and cookies" by a BE speaker or an AE speaker???  Or are you asking why it is not?



I'm saying the line you've quoted says little about the discussion. It doesn't get us anywhere. 

Btw, do you consider those examples I found in the COCA natural AmE?


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I'm saying the line you've quoted says little about the discussion. It doesn't get us anywhere.
> 
> Btw, do you consider those examples I found in the COCA natural AmE?


So you are arguing for it?

The native AE speakers do not find "box of sweets" natural - that's pretty clear


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> So you are arguing for it?



No, I'm trying to find a principled account.
The photo of a sweets shop is interesting; are you saying that a sweets shop never sells cookies or cakes?
What about a confectionery store? Are sweet confections never called sweets in BrE?

We still have the fact that the BBC has the section titled Homemade Sweets to explain away.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The photo of a sweets shop is interesting; are you saying that a sweets shop never sells cookies or cakes?


Yes. Well, I haven't visited every sweet shop in the country, so it's possible, I suppose, that the odd shop somewhere might sell the odd cookie. But it wouldn't be thought of as a sweet. I do know, however, that some sweet shops also sell ice cream. That's not a sweet either. 



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What about a confectionery store? Are sweet confections never called sweets in BrE?



I'm not sure what a confectionery store is. I don't think we have them here.

You'll usually find cakes and cookies, (or more commonly in BE 'biscuits'), sold in bakeries, cake shops, market stalls, or supermarkets. _Not_ sweet shops.


----------



## AutumnOwl

Perhaps your language doesn't have a specific word that covers the meaning of the BE "sweets", but I think the BE speakers here have given you an answer to what they would expect to find in a "box of sweets" and cookies and cakes is not something they would expect. Sometimes the answer is how people understand a word, and in the case of "sweets" in BE Keith Bradford has explained it in #3.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> We still have the fact that the BBC has the section titled Homemade Sweets to explain away.


We don't have to "explain it away" _One_ example of such usage does not change the discussion or situation about what "a box of sweets" means in AE or BE.
They had a list of recipes which contained both sweets and other sweet treats.  The headline writer/web designer chose to use "Homemade Sweets" to cover that unusual combined category of recipes for sweets and "sweet treats".  That doesn't suddenly mean that AE and BE speakers have adopted "sweet" for general use meaning sweets and sweet baked goods, if that is what you are trying to establish in the face of all the input from AE and BE speakers   In Taiwan, you say the situation is different and "box of sweets" has a different meaning _there_ than in AE/BE, but I'm sure that's not the only English word/expression that is used differently there


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> We don't have to "explain it away" _One_ example of such usage does not change the discussion or situation about what "a box of sweets" means in AE or BE.
> They had a list of recipes which contained both sweets and other sweet treats.  The headline writer/web designer chose to use "Homemade Sweets" to cover that unusual combined category of recipes for sweets and "sweet treats".  That doesn't suddenly mean that AE and BE speakers have adopted "sweet" for general use meaning sweets and sweet baked goods, if that is what you are trying to establish in the face of all the input from AE and BE speakers   In Taiwan, you say the situation is different and "box of sweets" has a different meaning _there_ than in AE/BE, but I'm sure that's not the only English word/expression that is used differently there



Where on that BBC page did you see the headline writer or anyone else for that matter make such a distinction between 'sweets' and sweet things as you're trying to establish here?

I have't said a box of cakes and other sweet things is called a box of sweets in Taiwan. I only asked what it would be called.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Where on that BBC page did you see the headline writer or anyone else for that matter make such a distinction between 'sweets' and sweet things as you're trying to establish here?


Because I looked at the recipes and some were for what BE speakers would call "sweets" and some were for cookies and other things the site called sweet treats, rather than sweets.  That is one occasion and I am not the one trying to establish anything here.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I have't said a box of cakes and other sweet things is called a box of sweets in Taiwan. I only asked what it would be called.


 On re-reading, you are right you did not assert exactly that.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> *In Taiwan*, it is common for guests at a wedding reception to receive a* box of sweet foods containing candies and cookies* individually packaged in packets. Would you refer to it as "a box of sweets"?


The answer to that has been a resounding "*NO*". End of story


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> Because I looked at the recipes and some were for what BE speakers would call "sweets" and some were for cookies and other things the site called sweet treats, rather than sweets.  That is one occasion and I am not the one trying to establish anything here.
> 
> On re-reading, you are right you did not assert exactly that.
> The answer to that has been a resounding "*NO*". End of story



Some recipes were for "sweets". Some were for cookies and other things.
But would you deny that "sweets" are also "sweet treats"? A priori, the reverse is not necessarily true, but not necessarily false either.
That's the crux of the question. When we see something is called a sweet treat, does that mean it is definitely not "sweets"?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I've found something new.

Valentines day is a great day to say I love you to your special someone. These *baskets of sweets (cookies and pops)* will certainly be a breath of fresh air to the traditional roses and cards.

bitesph


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Some recipes were for "sweets". Some were for cookies and other things.
> But would you deny that "sweets" are also "sweet treats"? A priori, the reverse is not necessarily true, but not necessarily false either.
> That's the crux of the question. When we see something is called a sweet treat, does that mean it is definitely not "sweets"?


If you have not understood yet, "sweets" in BE do _not_ refer to cookies, biscuits, cakes or macaroons.  A "sweet" (AE candy) is as Keith described right at the beginning.  The use of sweet _as an adjective_ is unremarkable in the expression "sweet treat" and it could cover a wide range of items and might well include "sweets".  I could imagine a parent trying to pacify a crying child: "OK if you stop crying I'll give you a treat.  Would you like a sweet or a macaroon?"

If you are trying to apply _formal logic_ to English usage, then I recommend you give up right now


----------



## heypresto

JulianStuart said:


> If you have not understood yet, "sweets" in BE do _not_ refer to cookies, biscuits, cakes or macaroons. A "sweet" (AE candy) is as Keith described right at the beginning. The use of sweet _as an adjective_ is unremarkable in the expression "sweet treat" and it could cover a wide range of items and might well include "sweets". I could imagine a parent trying to pacify a crying child: "OK if you stop crying I'll give you a treat. Would you like a sweet or a macaroon?"



 I was writing something along the same lines, but you've said it better.



JulianStuart said:


> If you are trying to apply _formal logic_ to English usage, then I recommend you give up right now







raymondaliasapollyon said:


> These baskets of sweets (cookies and pops)



This is from a predominantly cupcake and cookie site. The bag of 'sweets' are actually cookies and 'pops' - as the author carefully explains in brackets.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> When we see something is called a sweet treat, does that mean it is definitely not "sweets"


Please note:
When we see something is called a sweet (adjective) treat, does that mean it is definitely not "sweets" (noun)

Compare:
When we see someone is called a sweet (adjective) girl, does that mean she is definitely not "sweets" (noun)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> I was writing something along the same lines, but you've said it better.
> 
> 
> This is from a predominantly cupcake and cookie site. The bag of 'sweets' are actually cookies and 'pops' - as the author carefully explains in brackets.



Yes, but that also shows for the particular author, "sweets" include cookies. Why would s/he have put "cookies and pops" right after "sweets" if "cookies and pops" were not considered "sweets"?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> Please note:
> When we see something is called a sweet (adjective) treat, does that mean it is definitely not "sweets" (noun)
> 
> Compare:
> When we see someone is called a sweet (adjective) girl, does that mean she is definitely not "sweets" (noun)



That's a different, and irrelevant, sense of sweet.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> That's a different, and irrelevant, sense of sweet.



No it isn't. It's precisely the same sense of sweet.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Yes, but that also shows for the particular author, "sweets" include cookies. Why would s/he have put "cookies and pops" right after "sweets" if "cookies and pops" were not considered "sweets"?



The author put "cookies and pops" in brackets right after "sweets" to explain that the things that look like sweets, and are packaged to look like sweets, are in fact 'cookies and pops', and not sweets.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Yes, but that also shows for the particular author, "sweets" include cookies. Why would s/he have put "cookies and pops" right after "sweets" if "cookies and pops" were not considered "sweets"?


They felt the need to explain _that particular use_ of the word sweets?  Why would they feel that need if the use of "sweets" to cover "cookies and pops" was widespread. _Ergo (  )_, it's not widespread and needs the explanation.
(Cross-posted)
Would you be so kind as to re-state the proposition you are arguing for?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> No it isn't. It's precisely the same sense of sweet.



"sweet" as applied to a girl refers to her personality, not the taste of her flesh or blood.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

JulianStuart said:


> They felt the need to explain _that particular use_ of the word sweets?  Why would they feel that need if the use of "sweets" to cover "cookies and pops" was widespread. _Ergo (  )_, it's not widespread and needs the explanation.
> (Cross-posted)
> Would you be so kind as to re-state the proposition you are arguing for?



Granted, it is certainly possible that they feel the need to explain that particular use of the word 'sweets'. But it is hardly surprising. The word *sweets *is so generic, and the consumer would thus need to know what kind of "sweets" is offered. The designation 'sweets' gives little information as to what exactly they were offering. Hence the need to put cookies and pops in brackets.

I'm trying to evaluate every argument logically here. That's simply the way to sound argumentation.


----------



## JulianStuart

Still not sure what you are driving at in this thread
.
Simple question: Have you yet accepted that BE usage of the word "sweets" *is* as described by Keith above and does  _not_ include other sweet things like cookies, biscuits, macaroons etc? Or are you arguing against that?
(Whether, in a parallel universe perhaps, it _should_ include them, is, of course, not relevant to the issue)


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "sweet" as applied to a girl refers to her personality, not the taste of her flesh or blood.



Yes, I admit I was wrong about that,   but PaulQ's argument is still a valid one. 

I am now going to bow out of this thread. I can see we're getting nowhere very fast. A box of sweets does _*not*_ contain cookies.


----------



## AutumnOwl

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "sweet" as applied to a girl refers to her personality, not the taste of her flesh or blood.


Not all sweets (as defined in #3) taste sweet, a 70-85% chocolate is more bitter than sweet, and there are a lot of sour sweets,but they still belong to the group sweets in BE.


----------



## JulianStuart

AutumnOwl said:


> Not all sweets (as defined in #3) taste sweet, a 70-85% chocolate is more bitter than sweet, and there are a lot of sour sweets,but they still belong to the group sweets in BE.


Indeed
Here is what BE people think of when you ask about sweets
Favourite traditional British sweets: in pictures
Do _some_ people use "sweets" in a broader sense? _Some_times.  But this thread strongly suggests that it's rare.  (We cannot tell Raymond that it "absolutely never" happens, so perhaps that "concession" will satisfy his need for discussion)


----------



## Florentia52

The original question has been amply discussed. Thank you to all who participated. This thread is closed.

Florentia52, moderator


----------

