Hmm, yeah, maybe I was too quick on that one. They’re usually called “veggie burgers,” or something like that. You wouldn’t say, “I’ll have a veggie hamburger.”
Apparently, the McPlant.
I know it’s a bit of a side-track, but I can’t help to make a few observations:
- The German “Veganburger TS” is completely vegan, whereas the McPlant has cheese and mayo.
- The McPlant is “only available in a very limited number of restaurants for a limited time”, the Veganburger is available everywhere all the time.
- The Veganburger TS has 304 kcal, the McPlant 510 kcal.
-
Yeah, I was actually surprised that they’re just now rolling out a vegetarian burger, which I thought McDonalds would have had for a while now, and not a specifically vegan burger. Burger King’s had them since the early 2000s.
-
It’s worth noting that the “very limited number of restaurants,” is still more McDonald’s than you can find in all but 11 other countries. It’s a third as many McDonald’s as there are in all of Germany. And that’s just in two states.
-
“American portion sizes” are a real thing.
The vegetarian patties you could get circa 2000 didn’t remotely resemble meat. They were (are, since you can still get them) just compressed vegetable pucks. Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger are close enough to meat that you might not notice the difference if you aren’t paying too close attention (especially compared to fast food meat).
I meant that they’d had a meatless burger option for twenty years, not that they specifically had Impossible Burgers, which, of course, are pretty recent.
Understood. I guess I’m just suggesting that McDonalds probably didn’t want to bother with a sandwich that is fundamentally unlike a beef burger. Now that there’s a plausible alternative, they’re offering it.
Miller offered a pretty good simplified version, but I like this list because it hits a lot of edge cases. Specifically, look at #2 (“Is the object named after a material?”) and see how it disqualifies “hamburger” and “brick”–cases in which the material is named after the object, not vice versa.
Saying, “I have an object usually made from a certain material, so much that the material is named after it, but the object isn’t always made from the material” isn’t as cool, to me, as saying, “This object is named after a material it’s not made from.”
To repeat my earlier point, the origin of the word hamburger is uncertain, but may derive from an earlier version made from ham. There is no evidence that it comes from Hamburg, Germany or Hamburg NY, or any other place named Hamburg.
So a hamburger is in fact named after a material it’s not made from, possibly.
You are getting too much into the etymology. The object’s name “hamburger” predates the material’s name “hamburger.” “Ham” is irrelevant.
It’s your thread, I guess, but I don’t know why the requirements should be that specific.
IMO “tin foil” is a good example of the kind of language shift you were describing in the OP. Though I never use the term myself, I do often hear people say “I’ll get some tin foil”.
I guess I’m confused as to why you aren’t interested in examples like those.
Because I like it that way. I certainly see the benefit of a more open-ended meditation on words, but as I said before, I think a few, more elegant examples are a lot more interesting than a big old grab bag. Maybe someone wants to start a new thread for the more wide-ranging examples?
Because it’s more fun if it’s harder.
How is it even conceivably possible that “hamburger” isn’t named after Hamburg? I mean, I can well believe that the recipe doesn’t actually come from there, but the name is right there.
How about steamed hams?
Actually, there is a type of sandwich meat called turkey ham, or turkey processed in a way to resemble sandwich ham. So ham isn’t always made of ham. Would that count?
I think that’s an indictable offense.
Is it ever called “a ham”? Not “a ham sandwich,” not “a slice of ham,” but “a ham”?
Even if it is, though, rule two (“Is the object named after a material?”) is a real sonofabitch. “Ham” the material (gross) is named after “a ham” the object–specifically, the part of the pig from which the meat derives. “A ham” is the object, and the material is named after it, not vice versa.
Oh well, there goes “corset bone”, I guess. The substance called “bone” is named after the objects called “bones”, namely individual pieces of a skeleton.
I think that also kills your example of “horn”, which is likewise a material named after an object.
ETA: Unless we’re considering a more complicated second-order effect here regarding the derived object in question.
E.g., a horn (the instrument/noisemaker) is so called because it’s made out of an object called a horn (of an animal). Or, it’s so called because it’s made out of the substance called “horn”, which in turn is derived from the original object.
Likewise, a bone (in a corset or bodice) is so called because it’s made out of an object called a bone (of a whale, technically a piece of baleen rather than skeletal bone). Or, it’s so called because it’s made out of the substance called “bone”, which in turn is derived from the original object.
Your call.
Oh, and: I can go out for “an ice cream”, and such an ice cream can be vegan, containing no cream. So, an ice cream is no longer necessarily made from cream.
ETA: Yeah, okay.
Also: “Linens”, in the sense of “household linens”, is still getting to me. Because although it is typically not a singular noun, it is most definitely a countable one (you can see any number of ads for laundry workers tasked with “counting the linens”, for example).
But most such linens are now woven of cotton or synthetics, so it is true that linens are no longer necessarily made from linen.
Hmm…it’s not whether it’s made from “cream,” it’s whether it’s made from “ice cream.” Name’s gotta be the same.
But “an ice cream” is made from “ice cream”, no doubt. The problem is that if “an ice cream” can be vegan, that’s only because “ice cream” itself can be vegan. “An ice cream” must be made from ice cream. What the ice cream is made from is up for debate.