i like this thread not because of its suggested arguments but because of its insistence on breaking through and challenging traditional conventions of the categorization of colloquial subjects such as fast food
however, i must object to your method of argument here, as you only present commonplace correlations between the two articles compared in your thesis. While yes, you are certainly correct that there is parallell overlap in both articles' constituents, you are ignoring perhaps the most critical aspect when aspiring to form arguments in categorical onomastics.
The etymology of your first example (pizza) is of clear mediterranean-italian origin, derived from the italian word
pizza, literally meaning 'pie' or 'cake' [
1]. This presents a new conundrum that challenges your initial argument. The categorization of 'pizza' is, as evidenced by the etymological sources, is not derived purely from the elements used to create a pizza, but instead from the geolocational origins of the foodstuff.
This is in contrast to your second raised example, the sandwich, a word that has historical roots from which it derives its original name from. This has in turn lead to a generalization of the category of 'a sandwich' to describe a meal made from pieces of bread with a general foodstuff placed inbetween [
2].
While it may be argued that the nebulous nature of the preset categories derived from the etymological roots can lead to an implicit freedom of categorization, it cannot be argued for via a demonstration of parallell constituents in the exampled foodstuffs as the groupings applied by the original argument pays no regard to the etymological foundations of said categories.
