Yeah, because otherwise there are practically no sandwiches in America, because butter or margarine are rare on sandwiches here. There’s no definitional aspect regarding the filling, condiments, or spreads.
Egg-salad sandwich?
Finger/knuckle sandwich?
Well, that’s meat.
Ah, but isn’t egg meat? Sort of? If not, what is it? It’s not fruit or vegetable. It’s not a grain. It is an animal product. It’s a pre-animal. Maybe I should start a thread…
Well, they’re not my definitions, they’re dictionary definitions combined with common sense thinking.
As to pizza, it originated independently as its own category of food, just as a sandwich did. There just aren’t as many sub-categories for the item, just different toppings. I have no idea why this thread annoyed me all out of proportion to the topic. Must be the weather.
Learning German, I discovered that the general Germanic language construction for “sandwich” is simply “Blank-brot” or “Blank-bread”. For example, a “Hot Dog” would be generally a “Wurstbrot” or “Wurstsemmel” or a salami sandwich would be “Salamibrot”. And I’m not exactly sure, but I think that construction was the same in English before the inception and popularization of “Sandwich”. “ham bread” for example, would be a ham sandwich, as opposed to the current understanding of bread with ham baked into it.
There is one thing though, the “Blank-Bread” construction in German often seemed to infer that the sandwich was “open faced”- something on top of bread, as opposed to, well, “sandwiched” between two slices of bread… so maybe that was the innovation and specific connotation of the term “sandwich”… an extra piece of bread.
You do realize that you can vote for more than one option in the poll, right?
Will it become a sandwich if you rotate it 90 degrees?
I’d say all of the above and pizza is just a giant fancy open-faced sandwich.
I’ve seen menus in the United States that say “hot dog sandwich” or “frankfurter sandwich” or “Italian sausage sandwich.”
Actually, I should amend that: “Hamburg-style filet sandwich.” “Hamburger” originally referred to the meat by itself.
Making one statement once is not ‘insisting’
I also never said it was wrong to call a variety of soda a coke. I was merely wondering if a segment of the population who is comfortable with referring to specific sodas as ‘coke’ would also feel the same comfort level at referring to specific foods (subs, hoagies, grinders, etc) as ‘sandwiches’.
There is no value judgement inherent in being curious about that.:rolleyes:
Again, your analogy is backwards. It’s not a matter of value judgement. It’s simply that your question is posed the wrong way around.
Coke:soda::sub (etc.):sandwich
Whereas your question poses it this way
Coke:soda:
sub (etc.)
Are you making the claim that subs, grinders, hoagies, etc were in existance before The Earl of Sandwich created his namesake food? They are clearly subsets. The sandwich came first. They came later. Over time they proved to be so popular that they became identities unto themselves.
Would you call a frog ‘a tadpole’? Would you call a butterfly ‘a caterpillar?’ I think not, because you can clearly see that while what they were led to what they are, it no longer defines what they are.
A sub is a sub. A hoagie is a hoagie. A grinder is a grinder. A hamburger is a hamburger. A hot dog is a hot dog.
Hamburger sandwich and hot dog sandwich used to be the standard way of referring to one back in the 1930s and probably well into the 50s. These were substantial meals, usually a good quarter-pound burger or more. Here are some hits from the Google News Archive search page.
And they are all subsets of the category “sandwich.” And you clearly agree, because you say …
And that is exactly why your question about Coke is backwards.
Coke is a type of soda. Therefore, it is logical to refer to a Coke as “a soda.”
A submarine sandwich is a type of sandwich. Therefore, it is logical to refer to a sub as “a sandwich.”
But you are asking about people who refer to any soda as “a Coke.” That’s not analogous.
Another thought on pizza: it’s generally referred to as a “pizza pie”, at least on the east coast. I don’t know what the word pizza means in Italian, if anything.
This isn’t a thread about logic. This is a thread about food. Your insistance that the rules of logic need to be followed in a food thread is nonsensical to the point of being rude. This was a fun thread where everyone was joining in and giving their opinions. Noone was right and noone was wrong.
Then you and Chefguy came in here and chilled the fun with your didactics, food snobbery, and claims that Wiki provides all the answers.
Asking a question isn’t right or wrong and your insistance on ‘value judgements’ about simple questions borne out of simple curiosity is pushy, snooty, and overbearing. This isn’t Great Debates.
Lighten Up Francis!
Um, what? Ascenray’s comments were perfectly courteous, on-point, and correct. I, too, was confused by your analogy.
I wasn’t making an analogy. I was simply asking if a certain group of people who did one thing also did another. The coke comment was an aside that was buried in the thread until Ascenray dug it up and tried to claim that I was making a judgement about Southerners and made it an issue. When I explained that wasn’t the case, Ascenray decided to keep digging and poking.
Ascenray now wants to make this an argument about logic. I don’t see it that way. I don’t think people’s opinions about food have to be logical. Asking whether someone who refers to orange soda as coke would also refer to a hoagie as a sandwich isn’t a question about logic. It is a question about regional references to food and speech patterns. These don’t have to follow the laws of logic.
One cite (we’re still doing cites here, right?) was from Wiki, one was from Merriam’s Online Dictionary. This is an opinion forum. People offered their opinions; I offered mine. You’re under no obligation to read, heed, or otherwise pay any attention to them. In fact, I urge you to put me on ignore, since I offend your sensibilities so. Cheers.