Miriam-Webster just declared them so. Detroit Free Press coverage of the Webster Declaration The New York Post notes that some are calling Webster's Declaration an act of terrorism. For background, back in 2015 The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council adamantly said they are not sandwiches Back in 2014 Fox Sports also said the hot dog is not a sandwich
It's a meat product served on bread, with condiments like mustard, ketchup, relish, onions, sour kraut. By that very simple definition, I suppose it's no different than a turkey sandwich. But, no, a hot dog doesn't meet the definition of what most people would normally consider a "sandwich."
But as Webster's argued, a meatball sandwich does? There's also the odd construction that a hot dog is a meat that we usually put on a hot dog bun and a hamburger is a meat we put on a hamburger bun. If the hot dog on a bun is a together a "hot dog" and not a "hot dog sandwich", then a hamburger on a hamburger bun is probably a hamburger and not a "hamburger sandwich". This is quite unlike what happens with bologna, turkey, or ham, which become bologna sandwiches, turkey sandwiches, and ham sandwiches. So linguistically, did Webster just screw up?
Are people animals? Yes, but how often is someone talking about a human when they use the word "animal?"
Webster is saying: Sandwich: 1) two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between 2) one slice of bread covered with food 2 is the open face sandwich, which doesn't apply 1a doesn't apply because it's not two or more slices of bread. In fact, it's not sliced bread at all. 1b is a split roll, and a hotdog bun is just a long form of hamburger bun. Both are split rolls. By that definition, a hot dog is a funky type of sandwich, similar to the old subway sandwiches with the v-cut, and the same as a meatball sandwich. Or are hotdogs and hamburgers linguistically distinct in that the entire assembly with the bun retains the same name as the filling alone? For all X except hotdogs, brats, and hamburgers, X on a bun is an "X sandwich". For those exceptions, X on a bun is still just X.
Asking "is a hotdog a sandwich" is like asking if grabbing the boob of someone who has implants counts as "touching a boob." Just shut the fuck up and touch the boob, or eat the hotdog, or touch boobs while eating a hotdog.
Don't you love this approach to linguistics that sets out to tell native speakers their language doesn't work the way they use it? People actually interested in language would much prefer to examine what part of the actual, in-use concept of the 'sandwich' excludes hot dogs, and correct the definition of the first word so that it suits English speakers, rather than tell them the second word doesn't mean what they thought it did. Yeah, I took the question seriously, and there's nothing you can do about it.
More seriously, you said "and correct the definition of the first word". Why does this touch on the definition of "hot"? If you focus on that part of the phrase then shortly after they come off the grill we're eating dogs.
I bet Reddit's in a tizzy right now. In a formal sense, a hot dog may be a sandwich, since the frankfurter proper is sandwiched between a thing consisting of bread and another thing consisting of bread, but in a true sense it is not a sandwich.
I'd put burritos and tacos in the "wrap" category. Which begs the question, are wraps "sandwiches" or something else?
Oh, NOW you're into "Rescue Me"? After I begged in a lake of my own tears and snot for you to try it out, and you went "myeh! ".
The way I remember that conversation is that I told you it was too soon for me to watch it at the time. But when Netflix finally coughed up all seven seasons, I got into it.
