I'm not sure if this is going to forestall or foment heated discussion about what is or isn't a sandwich, but it's certainly an attempt to codify what constitutes sandwichness:
Sure there is, you just need to look at the evolution of language, not DNA. The common ancestor is a meal eaten by the Earl of Sandwich in the 1760s, “salt beef between two slices of toasted bread”.
Yet even their "Anarchist" (lower right) square has a rectangular item of food, with a starchy, finger-friendly exterior around a less starchy & finger-friendly interior.
Vs. a chart with chocolate-covered cherries, ceiling tiles, and such...
Agreed. One point of contention I've seen before is the question of whether a piece of fried chicken with breading is a sandwich. Personally I argue that it is not, because the batter is cooked for the first time on the chicken itself. The starchy finger-friendly exterior should be fully edible before the construction of a sandwich.
You could argue, however, that a piece of fried chicken with breading is technically a meat bun.
I will proclaim that the finger-friendly exterior is important, but the order in which the outside vs. contents are added/cooked/finished/whatever is not.
So well-breaded chicken is. Likewise a two-crusted pie. But a ravioli is not a sandwich.
I’m a big fan of the cube rule except for its salad category. The idea that a frittata and a bowl of tomato soup are equivalent is hard to swallow (pun intended).
Humanity and its culture can't get stuck because of these outdated and despotic rules. It has been a while since I feel hot dogs started transitioning into quiche.
