Depends if you're using the botanical definition or the (more common) culinary definition[0].
I would argue fruit and fruit are two words, one created semasiologically and the other created onomasiologically. Had we chosen a different pronunciation for one of those words, there would be no confusion about what fruits are.
Yup. Though rather than say "fruit and fruit" are two words, or focusing on "definitions" (which tend to morph over time anyway), I think the more straightforward and typical approach is to just recognize that the same word can have different meanings in different contexts.
This is such a basic and universal part of language, it is a mystery to me why something so transparently clueless as "actually, tomato is a fruit" persists.
I mean, a jelly is just broadly any thickened sweet goop (doesn't even have to be fruit, and is often allowed to have some savoury/umami, e.g. mint jelly or red pepper jelly). Usually a jelly also is relatively clear and translucent, as it is made with puree / concentrate strained to remove large fibers, but this isn't really a strict requirement, and the amount of straining / translucency is generally just a matter of degree. There are opaque jellies out there, and jellies with bits and pieces.
Ketchup has essentially all the key defining features of a jelly, technically, just is more fibrous / opaque and savoury than most typical jellies.
But, of course, calling a ketchup "jelly", due to such technical arguments, is exactly as dumb as saying "ayktually, tomato is a fruit": both are utterly clueless to how these words are actually used in culinary contexts.
