This seemingly innocuous question has been on my mind for the past week, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on it and (hopefully) get some helpful insight.
First off, I started by trying to craft a definition of "sandwich" that was as basic as possible. This was "anything surrounded by processed grain" which I immediately found problematic (as I expected it to) because this would include spaghetti and other pastas that we definitely wouldn't colloquially consider to be sandwiches. So I tried to narrow this scope a little bit by redefining a sandwich as something that was surrounded by bread. But this lead to a huge problem because defining exactly what "bread" is was a more complex undertaking than I'd anticipated. For example: do lasagna noodles or cake count as bread? If I restricted myself to only using leavened "breads" that would eliminate matzos, pita, and other such flatbreads. So I scrapped that definition and decided to accept that my ontology would necessarily have to include things like lasagna, pizza, and gyros as sandwiches even though they aren't colloquially considered sandwiches.
I never reached a full definition of what a sandwich was, so I'm opening the question up to you guys to see where we can go. I think this question says a lot about how we group things together and almost subconsciously consider things to follow certain patterns without actually realizing what those patterns are.
Finally, a post for me. I've actually spent a considerable amount of time trying to come up with a basic definition of a sandwich. I ran into some problems too, but different ones than the ones you mentioned. The solution I found most satisfying was defining a sandwich as "a set of ingredients contained between two distinct 'halves' of a bread product." This was the best (and simplest) definition to me for these reasons: * It excludes wraps, burritos, gyros, and other similar products (violates the 'distinct halves' section) * It includes sub sandwiches and other sandwiches that have partially connected halves (still 'distinct') * It excludes toast, flatbreads, and other nonsandwich bread-based foods. The main problem with my definition is that it excludes open-faced sandwiches. I don't personally consider an open-faced sandwich to be a sandwich, but people that do would probably want to create their own definition. I also initially took issue with defining burgers and hot dogs as sandwiches, but I resolved that by making "burgers" and "hot dogs" subsets of the main "sandwich" set. I didn't bother to define what bread was. Maybe that should be the next thing I try to do.
thanks for gracing my eyes with this abomination
I'm comfortable excluding wraps and burritos, but I think gyros fit the "two distinct halves" criterion. Although the thickness is uniform, unlike a hot dog or sub, when holding a gyros there are clear sides that function much like a sub. The wraps and burritos are excluded because one could turn them in any direction without losing the contents.It excludes wraps, burritos, gyros
The issue is that the "clear sides" of a gyro are made up of one piece of flatbread that's folded around some meat and veg. A gyro is essentially a wrap that doesn't wrap around all the way. Sure, it has distinct sides. But I challenge anybody to find the top and bottom halves of a gyro. The crucial difference between hot dog buns, sub buns, and other things similar to them is the cut. The cut gives the bun sandwich-like definition. A fold can approximate it, but a folded piece of bread is inherently unstable. It needs to be held shut, or it reverts to just "flatbread with toppings". You can complete the fold by rolling both sides together - but then you're back at a wrap again. Good points though. If I can find a better definition, I will.
But what about open faced sandwiches? And cutting a burrito in half lengthwise (admittedly a dumb thing to do, but hey it's a thought experiment) would make it fit that definition of a sandwich as well. I do like where you're headed though, and I think we can definitely work with the idea that the way the bread is applied is important to what we consider a sandwich. I certainly think that it has to be a flat piece (or pieces) of bread on which the set of ingredients are applied. Your definition brings to light something I was playing around with as well: the idea that sandwiches are more defined on how they look than how they're actually made. Thus a sandwich could be anything that is surrounded by flat (or relatively flat) objects of the same general materials. However, this begs the question of what multidimensional sandwiches would look like (which is a super weird thing to thinks about).
The keyword is "between". If you cut a burrito in half, the ingredients wouldn't be contained between the two halves. They'd just be inside each half, without the other half being necessary. Open faced sandwiches are another thing entirely. They share more in common with toast than they do proper sandwiches. The crucial part of a sandwich is how it contains things. Open faced sandwiches don't contain, they support. They're the location that other things rest on. A sandwich, generally speaking (looking at you, hot dogs and some subs), should be able to be inverted. The issue here is that the word "sandwich" has two meanings. The first one, shit between bread (cgod), is the one I've been talking about. The second one is used like you were saying: things between other things. Ice cream sandwiches (cookies) are the best example I can think of. Notice though how when you hear the word "sandwich" by itself, you always think of the first use - a bread something. That might be the key right there.
Interesting! First thing that came to my mind was "Two flat layers of one substance with another flat layer pressed between." This works for food but also for non-food, sandwich transistors for example, or when you get sandwiched between two Finnish dwarves. But of course this use of sandwich came after the original use which was the food item, and "sandwich" nowadays can mean "something resembling the structure of the sandwich food item." The idea of an "open-faced sandwich" is particularly interesting. It's like sandwiches became so common that the part of definition about two pieces of bread was no longer important - it is a sandwich because it looks like a sandwich. And if it's missing the top piece of bread well then it's a sandwich that's open. Weird. Is that like a one-hand clap? Or a four leaf clover with 3 leaves? Or related to the fact that I'm half-centaur and my girlfriend is half-mermaid? Reminds me of a nearby mountain called Forbordsfjellet. "Fjell" = mountain, and Forbord is the little village in front of the mountain. So far so good: Forbord's mountain. But "forbord" means "before the foot of the mountain." The village was named for being at the foot of the mountain, and then the mountain was named later after the village. Before-the-foot-of-the-mountain mountain. Weird. Sorry - don't want to hijack an awesome discussion about sandwiches with Norwegian mountain names, but this feels connected to open-faced sandwiches somehow.
This whole fucking discussion is why I hate philosophy. WHY define a sandwich. WHAT DO YOU GET out of defining a sandwich. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE of defining a sandwich. Yet here we are, "a sandwich to me because" "but not this because flatbreads" "socratic method through sandwiches" EAT A FUCKING DICK. Definition is a linguistic exercise. Linguistics is the art of communication. The purpose of defining a sandwich is not so that you can contemplate the fundamental nature of "sandwich" it's to communicate "sandwich" to someone else. So is a gyro a sandwich? No, a gyro is not a fucking sandwich, a gyro is a gyro and if someone wanted a sandwich and you gave them a gyro, they would be confused. Is a gyro sandwich-like? Certainly, because when you visit 24-hour diners in rural America as "gyro sandwiches" because the way you communicate the concept of frozen gyro meat with iceberg tomatoes and yogurt to a trucker in Bismarck is by giving him an anchor ("sandwich") and a qualifier ("gyro"). This could also be a "philly cheesesteak sandwich" or an "egg salad sandwich" or a "monte cristo sandwich." Is an open-face sandwich a sandwich? yes, an open-face sandwich is a fucking sandwich because it has all the known ingredients of a sandwich, but it is served in a way outside the norm. "open faced" (qualifier) "sandwich" (anchor). Note that more than one anchor is needed: "open faced" "hot" "turkey" "sandwich." Is a hoagie a sandwich? yes, a hoagie is a sandwich because at one point it was a "hoagie sandwich" but the term became so popular that the anchor was dropped and the qualifier became the anchor. A "po boy" is also a sandwich as is a "philly cheesesteak" and, like the gyro, depending on where you are a "monte cristo" is a sandwich without needing to be a "monte christo sandwich." So is a hamburger a sandwich? Fucking hell a hamburger is a sandwich, but you don't think of it as a sandwich because the qualifier in "hamburger" "sandwich" became such an anchor that it has prompted an entire industry of food on its own. But it's still a fucking sandwich. How 'bout a hot dog? It's got a roll split in half with something in the middle, right? BUT IT IS NOT A FUCKING SANDWICH because no one has ever called it a fucking sandwich, will never call it a fucking sandwich, and if you want a hot dog sandwich, be poor, be out of bologna, and have a sharp knife. Yet apparently this is a fucking thing that actual people actually talk about. It quickly becomes obvious that the definition of "sandwich" is heavily dependent on context, which isn't surprising, because it's food, and food is one of the deepest somatic triggers of tribalism we possess. But "sandwich" is also so ubiquitous that it's a noun, a verb and an adjective. I can eat a sandwich. I can eat sandwich cookies. Wooden studs can be sandwiched between two layers of drywall to form a wall. It's a versatile word, so much so that it forms the shorthand of "thing between two other things" to anyone who learns English. But a definition beyond that is subjective, context-sensitive, and UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY FUCKING WORTHLESS. Is a gyro a sandwich? Depends - does the guy you're telling about the gyro know what a gyro is? Does he know the word "sandwich?" Because if he knows neither word, you're going to have to take another tack. And that tack will involve describing flat things with stuff in between.
It's entertaining Joy Having fun I smiled when I saw this post yesterdayWHY
WHAT DO YOU GET
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE
UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY FUCKING WORTHLESS
well im Irish, so like bread, butter whateveryouwant butter and bread.
I was part of a lengthy discussion about sandwiches in the off-topic channel of a gaming group i'm in. Some of the highlights included: sushi rolls, chowder bread bowls, mac & cheese, poptarts. It gets really absurd because there is an exception to pretty much any defining characteristic of a sandwich. I'll try and dig up some of the logs from that conversation, it was a lot of fun.
I don't have much to add about sandwiches themselves, but I'll leave this: -- Justice Potter StewartI shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"/"sandwich"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture [hotdog] involved in this case is not that.
I think it is. The usual argument is "soup cant be sweet" but then you have Fruit Soup then someone says "milk can't be the main liquid in a soup!" and I give them Milk Soup. So, if one defines soup as a liquid containing some pieces of "other stuff" and soup can be sweet and have milk as basis.... Cereal is a soup
There was a discussion on Reddit about this that you might have seen. In case you haven't, I'll link it here. It's a philosophy discussion based on a professor using the discussion to teach the limits of knowledge. Is This a Sandwich? Teaching the Platonic Dialogues through sandwiches, by Dr. M. Ritchey, PhD At the end of the article, there's a link to a crowdsourced discussion on the definition. It requires an e-mail address, so I haven't checked it out.
There's a weekly radio show / podcast called Talk the Talk hosted by linguist Daniel Midgely about linguistics, aimed at non-linguists. Their Sandwich episode was pretty interesting.