irach] Is the fruit pickled? *the audience rise as one person, cheering* YES!

Software] Can one find this on the supermarket shelf today? One can find products with the same name on supermarket shelves - whether they are exact product referred to is doubtful.

irach] Is it an ethnic food from the East? No
ImNotJohn] Is the answer in the form 'so-and-so's such-and-such'? *cries of 'oooh' from the audience* No, but not that far off - in two ways.

Actually, the audience should have applauded part of irach's question.

irach] Does it involve mango? No mag

irach] Does it involve citrus? No, Mel
Software] Phileas Fogg's gentleman's relish? No

It's Friday, it's five o'clock, it's Crackerjack! time for a summary, I feel

The whole thing takes the form of something described by “a phrase, proverb, etc”, though it is not a proverb. It includes two words describing a food product, and the name(s) of one or more persons, who is/are almost certainly fictional. The human element is not a collection of persons.

The food is derived from a fruit. Although the exact meaning of the word on the card is ambiguous, the fruit in question is almost certainly a berry, botanically speaking. The fruit is not lemon, blackberry, gooseberry, grape, mango, tomato or olive (though the last two got some applause), and it is not normally sweet-tasting. It is a common-place edible item.

The food product is pickled (sale being the mineral implied in the answer). It is not Heinz baked beans, jam or marmalade, ice cream, or a fruit milk shake. You can find food products with the same name on supermarket shelves, though they are probably not the exact product referred to in the words on the card. It is not an ethnic food from the East, though part of that question garnered applause.

The phrase is not a kind of warning, or the title of a literary or artistic work. [Note – the phrase may have been used as a title, but that’s not where you know it from] The phrase is not: the apple of one’s eye; so angry I could crush a grape; the fruit of our labours; a loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou beside me; Popeye and Olive Oil; Yankee Doodle Dandy. The phrase does not take the form 'so-and-so's such-and-such', but that is close in two distinct ways.

This game is missing one of its usual players, who might well have got this by now, or at least posed a particularly pertinent question.

Well, we've a worthy winner! The complete Peter Piper phrase it is - one pepper-flavoured baton handed over to irach.

---

The next is ABSTRACT WITH MINERAL AND PROBABLE VEGETABLE CONNECTIONS `

[Software] Yes, a phrase.

[Dujon] Totally terrestrial.

[irach] Not a liquid.

[Dujon] Not a rock.
[Rosie} Not "old as the hills".
[Iroulëguy] The probable vegetable is not wood
[ImNotJohn] the phrase was coined in English, but is not culturally specific.

[Rosie] The mineral is non-combustible.

[Software} Not a "saying", but a frequently used term.

[Inkspot],[Phil] The mineral IS metal.

I feel rather silly now - oops!

[Phil] Actually, that was a great and very relevant question from you -there is a difference in the material being mostly metal or being metal entirely.

Or ferric.

[irach] Not ionic as in ferrous or ferric, but ferrum, yes.

[irach] For the most part, yes. Actually the phrase or term also has/had a physical aspect to it; although it is generally used in an abstract sense.

[Rosie] Not a cast=iron case.
[CdM] It does indeed.

[Rosie] Not an iron will.

[Cdm] The "iron curtain" it is. Take it away.

---

A near lurker's victory there. Anyway, this one is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL connections.

Bach's 'Air on a G string'?

A classical thong? No.

Human Animals? Yes. The animal connections are human.

Human construct? Yes (with a fairly broad definition of 'construct')
Artistic connections? There are some artistic connections, but they are tangential. The words on the card do not refer to something artistic.

Phrase or saying? Well, strictly speaking the words on the card do constitute a phrase, but it is not a saying or proverb or adage or aphorism or anything of that kind.

Phew! That 'whoops!' button's really useful.

A particular human being? Not a particular human being, but the animal connections are to particular individuals, Yes.
To do with the law? That's a tricky one. My first response was No, but on reflection a better answer might be Yes, absolutely!
Sporting connection? The least misleading answer is clearly No, though you can make a case for Yes.

Olympian? No. (Again, I can make a case for a very tangential Yes, but sport is not a fruitful line of enquiry.)