For me, it may be that the toilet paper roll needs to have the open end away from the wall. I don’t want to reach under the roll to take a piece! That’s ludicrous!
That or my recent addiction to correcting people when they use “less” when they should use “fewer”
The “is a hot dog a sandwich” and similar discussions are solved with the mighty sword of language and not some rigid taxonomy about fillings and bread.
Imagine a set of food items on a table, hot dog amongst them, but not other pseudo-sandwiches. I ask you to “Please pass me that sandwich.” If there is but a moment’s pause in your mind before you reach for the hot dog, even if it’s as you surmise I must be speaking about the hot dog as there are no other sandwich-like items available, then it is not a sandwich.
I’ve usually heard that framed the other way around, but, yes, that sort of argument is also easily solved by this test.
I’ll recklessly posit that most “is x a y?” arguments can be addressed with this methodology, noting the exception of the fruit and vegetable ones, since the answer is simply a little more complicated, e.g. a tomato is botanically a fruit and culinarily a vegetable. The word fruit and vegetables have similar but functionally different meanings in botany and cuisine terminology, which explains the distinction.
I’d like to argue the fruit/vegetables dilemma is just arbitrary nonsense. All fruits come from vegetation, they’re as much vegetable as the stim, leaves, or flowers. The only reason we separate them is because some idiot got too carried away with taxonamy.
But hot dogs aren’t sandwiches they’re tacos. It perfectly logical to describe a hot dog as an American taco. If there were no taco items on the table and you asked for a taco I’d think you were being funny, but I’d pass you the hot dog.
Without pause? You’re telling me that if you saw a table with xiaolongbao, hamburger, duba wot, pizza, Caesar salad, ice cream, hot dog, soondubu, and potato chips on it and I said “Please pass me that taco.” you would hand me the hot dog without any hesitation? Even a fucking moment’s worth?
Pause long enough to go “that’s different”, then hand you the hot dog, because only one of those items is a taco, even if it’s not commonly called a taco.
Psycholinguisitics understands this effect. The “wrong” word is increasing cognitive load and slowing down the listener’s comprehension. The exact same thing happens when pronoun use is unclear and a person has to parse the most likely referent from context.
Language, especially English, is not computer code but leveraging the existing “libraries” of meaning and declaring variables carefully is usually very useful.
I wish we had a dialect or subset of English that was intended to be more like computer code, and would be used for precisely specifying things. I have no idea how we’d do such a thing, and it’d never be adopted (and probably it’s been tried!). But trying to write English in a way that can’t be misinterpreted can be a real chore.
Natural human languages always have ambiguity. There are plenty of conlangs (constructed languages) specifically designed to avoid ambiguity though if you wanted to use one of those.
If such a version of English were ever made, it would immediately gain ambiguity as soon as people began speaking it fluently (and same for the conlang if a community of speakers began using it fluently as well).
I think “legalese” might be close to what you’re describing. It can still be ambiguous, but it seems to be our best attempt at avoiding that. Some forms of technical writing may also meet your definition.
We do have that; it’s called “legalese.”
On a tenuously-related note, I really wish politicians would use Git (or at least some form of real version control) instead of relying on redlined drafts in Word.
This does exist in professional disciplines as jargon. I work in Orthopaedics and we do not say the “over here, inside part of my knee in the front. “. We say, “inferior, medial pole of the patella”
My reasoning is that a hotdog is a sausage. When you say you want a sandwich, you don’t say “pass me a ham” you say “pass me a ham sandwich.” When ordering a named sandwich, “I’ll have a Ruben” it’s widely understood that a Ruben is a sandwich so the modifier is already packaged in the name. A sandwich has “Sandwich” as a defining modifier.
When you ask for a hotdog you don’t say, “give me a hotdog sandwich” you say, “give me a hotdog.” The same situation works with bratwurst, you don’t order a brat sandwich. To further reinforce this, if you’re in the south and central US and order a Hotlink it comes on it’s own or in a hotdog bun but if you order a “hotlink sandwich” you get two hotlinks cut length wise and placed on a hamburger bun or bread.
A sausage can have a bun as a condiment and still be just a sausage. A sandwich can have sausage, but is still refered to as a sandwich. So a hotdog is a sausage served with bread, not a sandwich.
Are pepperoni and salami sausages?
It doesn’t change your sandwich example since they still fit if they are sausages, but sausage is another example of a name that is consistent except for all the times it isn’t.
Are pepperoni and salami sausages?
Yes.
It doesn’t change your sandwich example since they still fit if they are sausages,
It does unless you’re putting an entire pepperoni or salami in one piece on your bread and still call it a sandwich. I would call bread with a number of thin hotdog-slices still a sandwich, too.
I use this example to introduce formal and functional approaches to topics in the social sciences. Any argument you try to make within the debate ends up including a variant of “…because sandwiches [abstraction about what formally defines a sandwich]”, which itself presumes that the “right” way to carve up the world is in categories of form. You could also conceive of sandwiches functionally, where something isn’t a sandwich if we (some cultural or linguistic group) just don’t think of them that way.
From a functional view, the very fact the debate exists at all means hot dogs aren’t sandwiches, cereal isn’t soup, pop tarts aren’t ravioli, etc.
Then I make them think about it in contexts like language, Durkheim, and policy making and watch their little minds explode.
If you think of sandwich as a verb, then any food that is “sandwiched” can be a sandwich. Hamburgers, hoagies, hotdogs, tacos, quesadillas, etc. However, by convention, when there is a more common, dedicated word for foodstuff you should use that instead. Tacos are sandwiches but it is weird to call them that when we can just call them tacos.
I have a different issue.
A hot dog is a Frankfurt sausage or frankfurter in the United States. Frankfurters were notorious in the sausage scene for having the Frankfurt bend. You’ve probably seen this bend on fancier sausages like Louisiana Hot Links, or Chicken Pineapple. But US hot dogs, whether Ball Park or Oscar Meyer or whatever are these straight things.
Hot dogs are no longer hot dogs.
I use a similar example.
If I went to a restaurant and ordered a 3 meat sandwich, and they gave me a hotdog, I’d be fucking pissed. Likewise if I ordered a hotdog and they gave me a taco with solidified beef and relish, I’d be confused, and concerned that I got somebody else’s weird special taco order.
Categories aren’t limited only to the forms and functions, but expectations. You can redefine or consolidate terms all you like but all you’re doing is causing confusion. If that’s what people are after then good troll I guess.
