After a lengthy (around 4 hours) discussion among our roommates, we came along with a common definition of what is commonly referred to as a “sandwich”:
- Article 1: A sandwich is a dish consisting of a container and a filling.
- 1.1: The container must consist of one or two connected parts
- 1.2: It must be possible to retrieve the container without destroying it
- 1.3: The container must consist of a starchy base.
- Article 2: The sandwich must be able to be eaten in public without any non-edible third-party items (including tables, cutlery, napkins, and so on).
- Article 3: The customary way of consuming the sandwich must be compatible with the process described in Article 2.
Note: The sandwich is culturally defined; therefore, Article 3 is based on cultural criteria. In case of doubt, Articles 1 and 2 take precedence.
Everything here have been debated from an occidental and french persoective.
Me and my roommates would be very happy to explore new perspectives and contradictions as it would force us to make a more precise definition of the sandwich
According to us, hot dog is a sandwich as it fullfill article 1 and 2
Ok in english it’s a dish, the word i used in french was “met” which desigh only the food, bot the plate, meaning “dish[met] made of container of container and containee” implies both are part of the met and then edible.
Sorry for the translation unclarity
It indeed doesn’t really fit the definition we have. It is a real source of disagreement among us between those who wants to reject it from sandwich and those who wants to review the ruling.
This edgecase is really interesting and your opinion on that matter is welcomed
Si tu me demandes de lister 100 sandwiches différents, jamais je ne citerais le croque-monsieur.
Je crois que c’est parce qu’il ne devient croque-monsieur qu’une fois chauffé.
The danger here is asking a native English speaker their opinion when it could be a very cultural distinction. A U.S. dictionary will unambiguously call it a sandwich, but that could be simply to facilitate explaining what it is to a less familiar audience; essentially ”it’s a sandwich with these unusual characteristics”.
We also have “hot open face sandwiches” though which is typically a single slice of cheap sandwich bread topped with hot sliced meat (usually turkey or roast beef) and hot gravy.
But if you want my opinion, yes - they’re all sandwiches (albeit non-traditional).
I didn’t knew about smorrebrod until today, and it doesn’t really go in my definition of sandwich, but if you tell me that it is culturally accepted as a sandwich, it would indeed bring more useless and delicious debates to my life
Absolutely from article 1 as disturbing as it look.
I would also argue that 2 ramen blocks are not easy to eat in the street or anywhere as it would make fragment everywhere, making it hard to pass article 2
Also the cultural factor (no society eats 2 ramen noodle block like that) can eliminate it from the sandwich classification, but it remains in the sandwich logic.
After a lengthy (around 4 hours) discussion among our roommates, we came along with a common definition of what is commonly referred to as a “sandwich”:
- Article 1: A sandwich is a dish consisting of a container and a filling.
- 1.1: The container must consist of one or two connected parts
- 1.2: It must be possible to retrieve the container without destroying it
- 1.3: The container must consist of a starchy base.
- Article 2: The sandwich must be able to be eaten in public without any non-edible third-party items (including tables, cutlery, napkins, and so on).
- Article 3: The customary way of consuming the sandwich must be compatible with the process described in Article 2.
Note: The sandwich is culturally defined; therefore, Article 3 is based on cultural criteria. In case of doubt, Articles 1 and 2 take precedence.
Everything here have been debated from an occidental and french persoective.
Me and my roommates would be very happy to explore new perspectives and contradictions as it would force us to make a more precise definition of the sandwich
According to us, hot dog is a sandwich as it fullfill article 1 and 2
This is written like the founding fathers wrote it back in the 1400s
Coffee in a paper cup is then a sandwich.
Most people don’t consider paper cup as an edible part of the dish, the cup goes in third party accesories classification
There’s no rule against inedible containers. Only that it’s made from starch.
Ok in english it’s a dish, the word i used in french was “met” which desigh only the food, bot the plate, meaning “dish[met] made of container of container and containee” implies both are part of the met and then edible. Sorry for the translation unclarity
Ok, I will eat an ice cream in a waffle cone sandwich then.
Woah never thought of this, it quite destroys the definition, thank you for participating in science methodology of proving wrong theories i love it
So croque monsieur/madame is not a sandwich?
It indeed doesn’t really fit the definition we have. It is a real source of disagreement among us between those who wants to reject it from sandwich and those who wants to review the ruling.
This edgecase is really interesting and your opinion on that matter is welcomed
Si tu me demandes de lister 100 sandwiches différents, jamais je ne citerais le croque-monsieur. Je crois que c’est parce qu’il ne devient croque-monsieur qu’une fois chauffé.
But once the croque monsieur has been cooked, it can be eaten cold. The croque madame has an egg on top, not a sandwich.
Hmm. But you eat them both with a fork and knife. (And a panaché bien blanc, it’s law.)
The danger here is asking a native English speaker their opinion when it could be a very cultural distinction. A U.S. dictionary will unambiguously call it a sandwich, but that could be simply to facilitate explaining what it is to a less familiar audience; essentially ”it’s a sandwich with these unusual characteristics”.
We also have “hot open face sandwiches” though which is typically a single slice of cheap sandwich bread topped with hot sliced meat (usually turkey or roast beef) and hot gravy.
But if you want my opinion, yes - they’re all sandwiches (albeit non-traditional).
by this definition, two uncooked ramen noodle blocks stacked on eachother is a sandwich.
Not without a filling!
Spread some peanut butter between them though, and now we’re talking!
one of them is the base, the other is filling.
It would be a toast then, you must make the container be around the containee
there was nothing about that in the rules!
The info probably got lost in translation. Container and conatained implies on around the other. In french this sounds obvious, maybe not in english
i was assuming it was lost the other way around; surely you are not arguing that open-face sandwiches like smørrebrød are not sandwiches?
I didn’t knew about smorrebrod until today, and it doesn’t really go in my definition of sandwich, but if you tell me that it is culturally accepted as a sandwich, it would indeed bring more useless and delicious debates to my life
Absolutely from article 1 as disturbing as it look.
I would also argue that 2 ramen blocks are not easy to eat in the street or anywhere as it would make fragment everywhere, making it hard to pass article 2
Also the cultural factor (no society eats 2 ramen noodle block like that) can eliminate it from the sandwich classification, but it remains in the sandwich logic.