1835: "Random Obsessions"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Reka » Wed May 10, 2017 9:23 pm UTC

80-watt Hamster wrote:Is it contained by bread (or other raised dough product) and able to be eaten easily with one's hands? If both yes, then sandwich. Although this definition puts a strain on the nomenclature of an ice cream sandwich (common U.S. variety, anyway).

Ice cream sandwiches contain ice cream between two cookies. Cookies are "raised dough products"1. Ice cream sandwiches are specifically made to be eaten with the hands. Ergo, ice cream sandwiches are a 100% correct use of the term "sandwich".

1 in the sense that they're made of flour and a rising agent (baking powder/soda instead of yeast, yes, but a biscuit [American definition] contains no yeast and nobody would argue that a breakfast sandwich made with a biscuit is not a sandwich)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 12:00 am UTC

xtifr wrote:I think Randall is greatly overestimating the legs on this one. My guess is that it's more likely to last about as long as "what color is this dress?"

I think that's probably accurate - another in the same tier and vein is the "if a dog wore pants" question. The image that started the discussion on that other forum was the same image BlitzGirl posted. That would be an unlikely coincidence if this were a widespread and diverse meme like pirates and ninjas. We're very unlikely to get a shower of mobile games about defining sandwiches, for instance; it's just a question people use to start conversations, a single post to reblog around, what used to be e-mail forwards.

And at least it gets people to ask questions they wouldn't otherwise about semiotics &c., which puts it ahead of the dog pants question and more in the realm of the dress.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Thu May 11, 2017 12:40 am UTC

And that's assuming memes in general aren't getting much shorter-lived these days than they used to be. Since so many people are on some form of social network where susceptibility to memes is about equal, it takes them much less time to propagate from their point of origin to the general populace, from which point there's nothing left to do but die out.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby GlassHouses » Thu May 11, 2017 9:52 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:I know Judge John Hodgman has spent a lot of energy on this issue.

I was once in the US, though, and ordered a burger at a McDonalds. The person at the counter wanted to clarify my order. "Do you just want the sandwich?" I was paralysed, thinking I'd somehow mis-ordered. "No," I said, "I just want the burger."

"So, just the sandwich," she repeated back to me.

"Yes," I said, surmising that maybe Americans didn't have sandwiches, and anything betwixt two pieces of bread was a burger, or a sandwich, or whatever you chose to call it in that instance.

A sandwich to me is just a substance (or substances) pressed between two slices of bread, but not a substance (or substances) pressed between a bun. If people are flexible on that point, I can well imagine they're flexible enough on the concept of a sandwich. So I can well imagine the topic will become quite popular before it gets dropped.

I've had this experience, and the resulting confusion, too, and I found out that the question "just the sandwich?" should be interpreted as "...and not the meal?" where "the meal" is the sandwich (patty plus bun) AND fries and a drink.

If you're on the Atkins diet and want the meat but not the bun, you'd ask for "the patty without the bun" or similar, and if you want the bun but not the meat, then you're on your own. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 11:10 am UTC

Honestly, it's nice to have an explanation of what could possibly make a hamburger not a sandwich. However, in the US, there are many sandwiches that come in buns, and only some of them are hamburgers. A grilled chicken sandwich is certainly not a hamburger in any sense.

(However, we only indirectly refer to hamburgers themselves as sandwiches, such as this use of the generic term to specify the role within the meal, rather than the entity itself, or by quietly including hamburgers within the "sandwiches" section of a menu at a sit-down restaurant. You wouldn't refer to a hamburger as a sandwich outside of this kind of context; if someone steals your hamburger, you do not shout, "give me back my sandwich.")
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Thu May 11, 2017 12:01 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:A grilled chicken sandwich is certainly not a hamburger in any sense.


DanD wrote:How do you defined grilled chicken between two halves of a bun, with LTO, etc? I've never heard that called anything but a grilled chicken sandwich. Likewise, take any sandwich filling that you would put between bread, and put it between a bun, and I would still define it as a sandwich. On the other hand, if a hamburger was served on bread, that is still a hamburger. (In my definition, admittedly, hamburger is a subset of sandwich, so this doesn't violate it, but by yours it would appear to).


Here (Australia) we would call that a Chicken burger. Not a hamburger, but not a sandwich either. KFC sells burgers, not sandwiches.

And hot dogs not being sandwiches has nothing to do with the way the bread is cut or how they're eaten. It has everything to do with them being on bread rolls and hence not a sandwich by my countries definition which is obviously the correct definition.

So... that's my contribution to this trend.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 12:13 pm UTC

So following this pattern, a hamburger patty on toasted, sliced bread is no longer a hamburger, but a hamsandwich. Not a ham sandwich, of course, which is an entirely different thing, because it's only ham[delete space] that signifies ground beef.

Rolls and buns are fucking bread, Australia. Is it the shape of the crust that signifies this distinction? What if I use two heels from a loaf? What if I cut off the opposite surface of the bun to expose the foamy innards? What if I cut off all the crust entirely?

Edit: I want to clarify that I'm not getting into the definition-of-a-sandwich nonsense here, I'm just angry to have a perfectly good red-blooded American word cargo-culted into something else entirely.
Last edited by Copper Bezel on Thu May 11, 2017 12:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby flicky1991 » Thu May 11, 2017 12:15 pm UTC

WilliamLehnsherr wrote:Here (Australia) we would call that a Chicken burger. Not a hamburger, but not a sandwich either. KFC sells burgers, not sandwiches.
A chicken burger here is usually chicken in bread crumbs, in the shape of a burger, in a burger bun. Not grilled chicken. (Although there is a place near where I work that sells "chicken burgers" that are what you describe.)
any pronouns
----
avatar from chridd
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 12:26 pm UTC

We'd call that a breaded chicken sandwich. The -burger is reserved for sandwiches containing a ground [thing] patty. Turkey burgers and tofu burgers and bison burgers exist, but the implication is that the meat (or meat substitute) is ground (or has a "ground" consistency).

Edit: Like "páté", it's a "processing" term.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby da Doctah » Thu May 11, 2017 1:27 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:it's nice to have an explanation of what could possibly make a hamburger not a sandwich. However, in the US, there are many sandwiches that come in buns, and only some of them are hamburgers. A grilled chicken sandwich is certainly not a hamburger in any sense.


Datapoint a lot of you probably don't have: the "hot hamburger", served (at least in the 1970s) at the Drifter restaurant in Silver City, New Mexico. When I went back a couple of decades later with my girlfriend, I had to expose her to this, just so she could ask "why would anyone want a hamburger that isn't hot?" So here's the explanation....

Put cold sliced turkey between two slices of bread. Smear some mayonnaise on the bread first, maybe add lettuce and tomato. Serve on a plate with potato chips. This is a "turkey sandwich".

Now, put hot sliced turkey atop a slice of bread and pour gravy over it. Serve on a plate with mashed potatoes, on which the gravy is also added. This is a "hot turkey sandwich". (Note that we've already applied the term "sandwich" to something that has no feature of "between-ness".)

Likewise, cold sliced roast beef between two slices, with a mayo spread and lettuce and tomato, and you've got a "roast beef sandwich", but put hot sliced roast beef on top a single slice, mashed potatoes alongside, and gravy over both, and it's a "hot roast beef sandwich". A pattern has begun to emerge.

Now, like most places in New Mexico, you can get a hamburger patty inside a hamburger bun with various spreads/sauces also inside as well as various salad-like ingredients, and any reasonable person would call that a "hamburger". But if you put the patty atop a slice of bread with no salad, a scoop of mashed potato next to it, and top both with beef gravy, that of course is a "hot hamburger", and that's what you get if you ask for that item at the Drifter.

(Edit: Oh, and it's been a number of years since I've looked at the actual menu, but I'm pretty sure all of these are listed under the heading "Sandwiches".)

User avatar
SuicideJunkie
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Thu May 11, 2017 2:17 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Now, put hot sliced turkey atop a slice of bread and pour gravy over it. Serve on a plate with mashed potatoes, on which the gravy is also added. This is a "hot turkey sandwich". (Note that we've already applied the term "sandwich" to something that has no feature of "between-ness".)
Already? That seems to me the first time, and I'd have to disagree.
It has sandwich potential, if you were to fold it in half... but I think you're going off the chart in terms of structural anarchy here.

As I recall, when I was little and my father first tried to pass off such a food assemblage as a "hot turkey sandwich" I was quite offended by the sandwich portion of the claim.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 2:45 pm UTC

I've decided to die on hamburger hill for unrelated reasons, but my reason for being indifferent to the sandwich-definition argument is semiotic. Many words work by examples and analogy - most, in fact, in everyday speech, where strict definitions with specific criteria such as those used in scientific or legal contexts are rarely required. These definitions work outward in a cloud of associations from one or more prototypes that represent the most [word]y thing (or their association under the same term elevates the prototype, or some mix of the two), and those prototypes are generally loosely shared by a given discourse community. Individual entities that fall under the broader label do not all necessarily need to be associated to the prototype or prototypes by the same qualities. An NPN transistor is a sandwich, as is a hamburger and an Oreo cookie, but so is an archetypally sandwichy sandwich from which a single element (its bready lid in this case) has been removed. The chart shows two axes of sandwichy qualities, but there are presumably many others one might graph.

In everyday speech, when someone refers to a bird, the first association most people make is not a chicken or a penguin or an owl, because those are considered somehow removed from the prototype, which is probably a loose image of a songbird or similar.

Taking this a step further, a modifying word or phrase can denote an entity not normally covered by the headword, expanding rather than confining the headword's meaning. A trace fossil is something we'd rarely think of as a fossil. A dead baby lacks one of the most fundamental properties of a baby. An open-faced sandwich ... is an open-faced sandwich.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

ephraimephraim
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:01 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby ephraimephraim » Thu May 11, 2017 2:51 pm UTC

HES wrote:
ephraimephraim wrote:So-called "open-faced sandwiches" are obviously pizza.

Conversely, does this make Calzone a sandwich?

Of course not. A calzone is a closed-face pizza.

User avatar
SuicideJunkie
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Thu May 11, 2017 3:16 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:In everyday speech, when someone refers to a bird, the first association most people make is not a chicken or a penguin or an owl, because those are considered somehow removed from the prototype, which is probably a loose image of a songbird or similar.

Taking this a step further, a modifying word or phrase can denote an entity not normally covered by the headword, expanding rather than confining the headword's meaning. A trace fossil is something we'd rarely think of as a fossil. A dead baby lacks one of the most fundamental properties of a baby. An open-faced sandwich ... is an open-faced sandwich.
I don't quite follow. Are you saying that chickens aren't generally considered birds? Why does it matter to the definition what you think of first, or how frequently specific instances are encountered, if everyone agrees on it?

If an open faced sandwich is comparable to half a baby, I suppose I'm significantly more of a rebel on the baby definition chart than I am on the sandwich definition chart.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 3:30 pm UTC

SuicideJunkie wrote:I don't quite follow. Are you saying that chickens aren't generally considered birds? Why does it matter to the definition what you think of first, or how frequently specific instances are encountered, if everyone agrees on it?

Chickens certainly aren't the birdiest birds. At the same time the word "bird" also has a very strictly defined domain thanks to phylogeny. Sandwiches do not have phylogenies.

Do a Ctrl+F and consider the use of the word "truck" on the Wikipedia page for vans.

If an open faced sandwich is comparable to half a baby, I suppose I'm significantly more of a rebel on the baby definition chart than I am on the sandwich definition chart.

I don't think I can make a better argument than that. You can argue all day whether half a baby is a baby or whether an open-faced sandwich is a sandwich, but they are certainly half a baby and an open-faced sandwich, and in contexts where you expect all babies to be halved and all sandwiches to be open-faced, you might well use the term without modification.

Or similarly, you don't have to append "fictional" or "cartoon" or whatnot to every noun when you describe a series of events in a book or TV show, because it's understood from context that we're really talking about a particular kind of representation of a thing that isn't actually that thing whenever we invoke a particular thing within that representational work.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu May 11, 2017 4:22 pm UTC

The half baby / open-face sandwich thing makes me think of a way this can maybe be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

A half baby is not a baby. It's only half of a baby, which is not an entire baby. It is, however, a baby that has been halved: the product of taking a whole, unquestionably legit baby, and cutting it in half. Or, if you could somehow assemble babies from parts, the product of only halfway assembling a whole, unquestionably legit baby.

Likewise, an open-face sandwich is not, strictly speaking, a sandwich. That is to say, it's not an entire sandwich. It's basically half a sandwich, more or less. But it is still a sandwich which has had one face opened: the product of taking a whole, unquestionably legit sandwich, and removing a face from it; or, since we can and do easily assemble sandwiches from parts, the product of assembling a sandwich and leaving off a face of it.

Say you sit down to a picnic with a meal of a slice of meat and a slice of cheese and some kind of sauce in between two slices of bread from a loaf. You turn your back for a second and a bird attempts to steal your sandwich, however all he manages to get is the piece of bread off the top of it. Is what you have still on your plate not still your sandwich, albeit... defaced? Your dining partner asks if you're still going to finish your sandwich after the incident; is she speaking nonsense, or do you still have a sandwich that you could finish if you felt like it? If you do, would not something just like that made on purpose be something like a "purposefully-defaced sandwich", or less judgmentally, an "open-face sandwich"?


Also, I wanted to say the same thing Copper Bezel already said about "burger" as I'm familiar with it denoting a ground-somethingorother-patty, usually in a bun. I don't know that I've ever really encountered, say, a ground beef patty between two slices of bread from a loaf, and I feel tempted to call something like that a "hamburger sandwich", in a sense that means something different from an ordinary hamburger, which I would without question concede is a kind of sandwich already.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby ucim » Thu May 11, 2017 5:07 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I don't know that I've ever really encountered, say, a ground beef patty between two slices of bread from a loaf...
I had them all the time growing up. We didn't buy official hamburger buns, we just used bread. To me they were no different than using a whole-wheat bun rather than a white-bread bun. And to this day, when I have a hamburger at home, I will use unofficial wrappings; pita and english muffins being my enclosures of choice. None of these impinges on the essence of the thing.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu May 11, 2017 5:24 pm UTC

I feel like I would want to call those things a "hamburger pita" and a "hamburger muffin" respectively. Muffins relate to sandwiches in my mind the same way burgers do: yes no doubt it is technically a kind of sandwich, though I never really call it such. Pitas I normally think of more in the category of burritos which I definitely do not think of as sandwiches even though it really seems like I should for consistency; but then, I routinely have picnics with more or less the same things in them, centered around a sandwich with sliced deli meat and cheese, and I alternate the bread used for those sandwiches between either a... I guess it's technically a really thin-sliced bun? (these things) and pitas, and when I put my sandwich fixings into a pita I still happily call it "my sandwich", even though if I actually went out for a pita, like stuffed full of falafel and hummus and feta and tzatziki, I wouldn't tend to call that thing a sandwich, though much like with a burrito, I do feel like I probably should.

With the burritos and fat stuffed pitas (as opposed to my picnic sandwiches in pita bread), I feel like it's the not-flat-and-layered aspect that makes it feel like not a sandwich. It's food inside bread, sure, but it's not layers of food between layers of bread. Maybe that's why hot dogs don't seem like sandwiches either. Though if that's the criteria, it would seem that quesadillas should count as sandwiches -- it's basically a grilled cheese sandwich with a different kind of bread -- but they really don't. (On a related note, I saw somewhere fairly recently, I think maybe even somewhere on these forums, that people from somewhere outside the US, possibly the UK, classify basically anything in a tortilla as "a taco". So a burrito is a kind of taco, as is a quesadilla, etc. That seems exceedingly weird to me. And FWIW, tacos are to sandwiches the same as burritos are; probably should technically count maybe? but really doesn't seem like it does).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Keyman » Thu May 11, 2017 7:22 pm UTC

In (approximately?) the same way your burrito is a sandwich, would a taco be a hotdog?
Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. - A. Hamilton

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu May 11, 2017 7:34 pm UTC

The hotdog part of "a hotdog" is the sausage in the middle, and there can be hotdogs not on any buns at all (like on a stick, or just on a plate, optionally cut into pieces, possibly in a larger dish like say with baked beans), so I'd say no. But a taco shell is approximately the same kind of thing as a hot dog bun, sure. Something like loose ground beef ("taco meat" as some would call it in such a context) in a hot dog bun is clearly the same category of thing as a taco, though I don't have a name for that category besides "maybe a weird subset of sandwiches?" (and specifically a subset of whatever set burritos and pitas belong in, too).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 8:12 pm UTC

Yeah, the thing that makes a hot dog difficult for some part of my brain to accept as a sandwich is not its bun, but the fact that the bun seems auxiliary to the hot dog in providing the shape of the final concoction, in the same way that's true of a corn dog or a hot dog that's simply baked into its own bread sheath. Not at all unrelated that as Pfhorrest says, we're naming it by the meat and considering the bread a secondary thing that's wrapped around it that may not even be obligatory.

If I make a Philly cheese steak sandwich in a hot dog bun, that thing is definitely still a sandwich.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

rmsgrey
Posts: 3656
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu May 11, 2017 9:09 pm UTC

Chickens are birds in much the same way as birds are dinosaurs - it's technically true, but, unless you're making a point, you'd never call a chicken a "bird" (or a "dinosaur"), and if someone asks you to draw a dinosaur, or a bird, you wouldn't draw a chicken.

The way language works (or one of the ways language works - people are complicated) is that things get the best label that fits them, and labels get associated with the things that best exemplify them. There's a notional venn diagram of meanings, but when a region is contained within another, we tend to treat it as an enclave rather than an overlap.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu May 11, 2017 9:19 pm UTC

Keyman wrote:
In (approximately?) the same way your burrito is a sandwich, would a taco be a hotdog?

No, for the reasons already mentioned.

I could probably be convinced to count a hotdog (in a bun) as a type of taco, though.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 9:20 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:but when a region is contained within another, we tend to treat it as an enclave rather than an overlap.

Oh, that is a very nice way to think of it and much better than my babbling about vans and trucks.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu May 11, 2017 9:22 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:There's a notional venn diagram of meanings, but when a region is contained within another, we tend to treat it as an enclave rather than an overlap.

Yes, this nicely captures the way I feel about the burgers-as-sandwiches thing. If someone asks "is a burger a kind of sandwich?" I kind of picture a "Venn" (actually Euler) diagram and note that, yeah, I guess technically the burger circle is fully enclosed within the sandwich circle, but it seems like a distinction needs to be made between things that are technically sandwiches including all named subsets of sandwiches (like burgers), and something like sandwiches proper, that is, sandwiches that are not part of specially named subsets of sandwiches generally. (Along the lines of how a "proper class", the mathematical object, is any class that is not a set, even though all sets are classes).

OTOH, something like a burrito or pita or taco or hot dog I'm not sure where I want to put in that diagram. Burritos and (well-stuffed, burrito-like) pitas seem like they go in a circle together, as do tacos and hot dogs (together with each other), and all of those seem like they belong together in one big circle, which... also contains the sandwich circle, maybe? Related to the birds-and-dinosaurs thing: it's long seemed to me that instead of saying "birds are dinosaurs", we should have said all along that "dinosaurs were birds", or maybe something "birdiform"-esque: dinosaurs are the set of birds and everything more closely related to birds than to any other extant clades. Likewise, it seems like burritos and pitas and tacos and hot dogs are... sandwiform? They're more closely related to sandwiches than to anything else, conceptually-speaking, but it seems like sandwiches are technically a subset of the category that contains all of those things.

Some taxonomy like:
*Foods contained in bread
**Soup bowls
**Solid foods contained in bread
***Jumbles of solid foods wrapped loosely in bread
****Jumbles of solid foods incompletely wrapped loosely in bread
*****Tacos
*****Quesadillas
*****Hot dogs
*****Certain ways of making pitas
****Jumbles of solid foods completely wrapped loosely in bread
*****Burritos
*****Calzones
*****Pitas made the right way damnit
***Sandwiches: layers of food between layers of bread
****Closed-face sandwiches
*****Sandwiches proper (which can still be made with pita or tortilla or any other bread so long as it's layered)
*****Burgers (patties of ground foodstuff in a bun)
*****Etc?
****Open-faced sandwiches
*****Pizza?

I'm really uncertain about that last part there, but I feel forced to include it. I mean, if you took two pieces of focaccia, and put melted mozzarella, marinara, and pepperoni in between them, that's unquestionably a sandwich. If you take the top piece of focaccia off, you have a pizza, so it seems like a pizza has to count as an open-faced sandwich.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 11, 2017 10:38 pm UTC

++ on Sandwiforma and Sandwimopha.

Pizza seems to me to differ simply because its preparation differs so much. If you took an already-baked disc of bread, piled on some meat and cheese and a dollop of tomato sauce, and toasted your construction, I think that'd be a sandwich regardless of whether you folded it in half. Bierocks and pizza and pigs in a blanket are all baked goods to me.

And again, there are broad senses of "sandwich" that would certainly still apply, but not necessarily the most culinarily relevant. I can make a sandwich out of two pizzas in the way that I can make a sandwich out of two cookies and some ice cream.

I want to acknowledge at this stage that I do recognize that, despite my earlier protestations about the merits of the question, I'm now all the way down the rabbit hole carrying a shovel regardless. Just ... acknowledging that.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri May 12, 2017 2:41 am UTC

I like that distinction about whether the bread is cooked independently or together with the ingredients. That keeps corn dogs from being in the same taxon as burritos, which seems correct. That also takes calzones out of the same taxon as burritos and puts them in with corn dogs, but that's fine with me.

So now we've got a taxonomy something like:

*Foods in bread
**Pastriforms (foods cooked directly into bread)
***Pastries (foods cooked into the middle of bread, incl. corn dogs, pigs in blankets, ham and cheese croissants, calzones, pies, etc)
***Pizzas (foods cooked atop bread; basically, open-faced pastries)

**Foods placed into pre-cooked bread
***Soups in breadbowls (basically the duck-billed platypus of our taxonomy)

***Sandwiforms (solid foods in bread)
****Sandwiches (layers of bread and solid food)
******Closed-face sandwiches
*******"Sandwiches proper"
*******Burgers
*******Etc

******Open-faced sandwiches

****Wraps (loose solid foods mixed together in the middle of some bread wrapping)
*****Burritoforms (bread completely wrapped around loose solid foods, including burritos, properly made pitas, "wraps" proper, etc)
*****Tacoforms (bread partly wrapped around loose solid foods; basically, open-faced burritoforms)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby da Doctah » Fri May 12, 2017 4:25 am UTC

I don't see any obvious place in that scheme for KFC's "Double Down":

Image

That's not a bun. The outer part of the sandwich comprises two breaded and fried chicken patties.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri May 12, 2017 5:20 am UTC

I honestly think Pfhorrest's taxonomy is pretty sensible for how the term is normally used. There will always be things that exist by analogy or extension that don't fit into it, though; that's how polysemy happens. The Double Down resembles a sandwich and is being sold as a sandwich by a major food chain as a tongue-in-cheek substitute for competitors' sandwiches. It's an air-quotesy thing, or a half-a-baby thing.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri May 12, 2017 8:04 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:That's not a bun.

...it's a space-station?

Ae7flux
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:45 am UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Ae7flux » Fri May 12, 2017 1:12 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:I don't see any obvious place in that scheme for KFC's "Double Down"



Hell?

(If there was ever an argument for adding places of eternal damnation to schemas that is it.)
There is an x such that x entirely fails to signify just in case x lacks a specific combination of rotary and reciprocating motion.

User avatar
80-watt Hamster
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 1:17 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby 80-watt Hamster » Fri May 12, 2017 1:52 pm UTC

Now that the Double Down has been brought up, I'm rethinking the application of the word "sandwich" in regard to its history. Delving into "as you know..." territory, we have the popular origin as something the Earl of Sandwich's cook dreamed up so said Earl could eat while playing cards. At this point, it's simply a slab of meat between two chunks of bread. This is rightly realized as a fantastic arrangement, and is refined and expanded on over the years. By the time "sandwich" is a universal part of the English vocabulary, it inevitably becomes verbed; an object squished between two other like objects or materials is "sandwiched". If one accepts this word and its definition, what an edible sandwich is made of doesn't seem to matter. Anything of ABA structure is now a sandwich, Double Down and two pizzas face-to-face included.

Open face, however, still stretches definition. One of my personal stipulations is that a sandwich needs to be able to be eaten with the hands. Typical open-face sandwiches tend to have gravy on them, in my experience. Adding a top slice of bread doesn't allow this without making a sloppy mess, so in my view doesn't qualify despite the name.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri May 12, 2017 2:25 pm UTC

I'm telling you, it's just polysemy. They shared different aspects of sandwichdom with the accepted prototype and now both senses exist independently with their own conventions and history. And "structural" sandwichness and "ingredients" sandwichity are even the axes already represented on the chart. There are doubtless others, like Pfhorrest and I discussed regarding preparation.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Draconaes
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Draconaes » Fri May 12, 2017 2:32 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:*Foods in bread
**Pastriforms (foods cooked directly into bread)
***Pastries (foods cooked into the middle of bread, incl. corn dogs, pigs in blankets, ham and cheese croissants, calzones, pies, etc)
***Pizzas (foods cooked atop bread; basically, open-faced pastries)


Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but the categorization of the bolded text above threw me off for a moment. It appears my default definition of "Pigs in a blanket" was actually incorrect thanks to frequenting I.H.O.P. as a child, where the item on their menu labelled "Pigs in a blanket" was actually a sausage link wrapped in a pancake rather than a small hotdog cooked in a bread sheath.

After a quick google search, I am familiar with actual pigs in blankets, but I've never really heard them referred to as such (I think my family just called them mini-hot dogs).

As far as taxonomy for the IHOP pigs goes, I suppose under your system it would count as a sandwich since I'd hesitate to classify a sausage link as a "loose solid food", but structurally I'd still be inclined to call it a wrap.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri May 12, 2017 3:08 pm UTC

Pigs In Blankets are (mini-)sausages wrapped in (slightly less wide, not so long) strips of bacon, for anyone who is still confused. No pancake, no bread. Maybe a conservative amount of honey-based seasoning involved to create an adhesion between sausage-skin and bacon-wrapping. The ends of the sausage (typically the hemispherical ends) must poke out, the wrapping perhaps somewhere between one and two circumferii, all pre-cooked or perhaps part-cooked then completed in the final form, but either way the bacon is not cooked to the extent of the frangibleness of breakfast rashers. Can be eaten hot, warm or cold, according to the style of the meal - accompanying the Christmas turkey/chicken, alongside the stuffing balls, they'd be hot, whilst as a buffet snack they'd (eventually) be cold, just like the sausage rolls1, unless the host(/ess) makes a big deal of bringing them to the tressle straight from the oven where cooked/rewarmed.

1 This is a savoury-pastry-sheathed sausage (or sausage segment, cut from whole sausage-meat lemgths pre/post baking), with various diversity of construction but of overal, similar form.

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby heuristically_alone » Fri May 12, 2017 3:24 pm UTC

I only eat the crust on a sandwhich.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

You can learn to levitate with just a little help.

:idea: = Surprised Cyclops

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri May 12, 2017 3:42 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:As far as taxonomy for the IHOP pigs goes, I suppose under your system it would count as a sandwich since I'd hesitate to classify a sausage link as a "loose solid food", but structurally I'd still be inclined to call it a wrap.

I would put that IHOP thing in the same category as hod dogs, which I had been thinking of as tacoforms, but I guess the literal language I used does have the problem you point out. Maybe the "loose" is just unnecessary. After all, a piece of fried chicken, a leaf of lettuce, and some ranch sauce, wrapped in a tortilla, is an archetypical wrap, and that's the same kind of stuff that would otherwise go into a clear sandwich, not "loose" the way the beans rice and cheese of a burrito or the falafel hummus and feta of a pita are.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

TickleMeYoda
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:17 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby TickleMeYoda » Fri May 12, 2017 5:37 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Likewise, an open-face sandwich is not, strictly speaking, a sandwich. That is to say, it's not an entire sandwich. It's basically half a sandwich, more or less. But it is still a sandwich which has had one face opened: the product of taking a whole, unquestionably legit sandwich, and removing a face from it; or, since we can and do easily assemble sandwiches from parts, the product of assembling a sandwich and leaving off a face of it.


This argument right here made me realize this whole "what is a sandwich" thing is really a new take on the Ship of Theseus paradox. What makes a thing the thing it is? What would make it no longer that thing?

Also, I wanted to chime in to say that I have encountered the hot <meat> sandwich, too. My parents explained what it was and I tried one when we ate at a restaurant that may or may not have been a Waffle House.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby freezeblade » Fri May 12, 2017 6:00 pm UTC

I view any talk about how "hotdog in bun" can be considered a taco completely blasphemous. Tacos are made with tortillas, which are folded in half and unleavened, period. If you put tacos fillings on a roll, it's a torta (sandwich), not still a taco. If you encase the filling in a flour tortilla (or other stretchy tortilla, needs gluten though) it is a burrito, you cannot have a burrito made with a corn tortilla. I will fight you.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

MakingProgress
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:41 pm UTC

Re: 1835: "Random Obsessions"

Postby MakingProgress » Fri May 12, 2017 6:27 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:With normalised peaks, it's not easy to determine (without re-running the study, appropriately) the peak and profile for Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot.


Which one does not fit in this list ?
mutant teenage ninja pirate zombie samurai robot turtles

hint: https://xkcd.com/856/


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests