The Argument for Structural Purism: Relating to Sandwiches
Michaela Abney | Digital Editor
A picture has been circulating around the internet that has sparked many lively debates and many unenlightened and, frankly, ignorant beliefs. Anyone who believes that a hot dog is a sandwich is not only blatantly ignoring common sense, but is completely disregarding the English language.
Sandwich’s etymology traces back to the fourth Earl of Sandwich. The story surrounds the busy schedule of the immorality of the Earl as he was too busy attending to his gambling habits he didn’t have enough time to cook a meal and thus the sandwich was born. As with many words in the English language they evolve over time. For some that may mean that the words lose meaning overtime.
However, the contrary seems to be more accurate, as words evolve they don’t lose their origin but take from it and develop into something new. The surname, Sandwich developed from the German town of Kent and then it evolved to reference the man whose family came from this town and his creation, and as it evolved it began to reference the conceptual understanding of what his creation was. As the word became a verb, it referenced the concept of Sandwich’s creation, to insert or squeeze between two other people or things. This definition is crucial in understanding the action behind what creates a sandwich and why a hot dog cannot be considered a sandwich.
When someone calls a hot dog a sandwich they fail to understand the spatial understanding of what constitutes a sandwich. It is clear from the verb that follows in the evolution it must have three parts: an object and two other objects acting upon an object. This gives it the spatial understanding of being sandwiched. While the word has evolved to encompass many things like hoagies, ice cream sandwiches, and grilled cheeses; neither a hot dog or pop tart will ever be a sandwich.