Origin of "hot dog"

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>>Of course the OED shows "hot dog" = "sausage" from 1900 (quoting "Dialect
>>Notes"), and Farmer and Henley (ca. 1900) show "dogs" = "sausages"
>>(university slang).
>
>more specifically in 1891, pub. date for Volume II, but given the
>"university" gloss, no doubt it was already fairly well established
>by then.

But note that the "dogs" entry cross-references the synonyms "bags of
mystery" (Vol. I, 1890) and "chambers of horror" (Vol. II, 1891), while
these entries do not cross-reference "dogs". I don't know for sure what
this means, if anything, but it MIGHT suggest that F & H didn't have "dogs"
until relatively late in their work on Vol. II.

>And doesn't the F&H listing suggest a British, rather than
>U.S., origin?

Yes, and Partridge's entry does too (by omission).

Note that these usages were apparently originally always in plural form:
i.e., I guess each sausage was not being termed a "dog" individually.
Partridge says "always plural", and I think Farmer and Hensley implicitly
concur (their main entry for this is "dogs" rather than "dog"). I suppose
this would be analogous to "chitterlings" and maybe to "mashed potatoes",
"scrambled eggs", and other quasi-uncountable food-plurals. Of course, even
if this was strictly observed at one time, it's a very easy step to a
back-formed singular in this case.

One would assume that as long as there have been "dogs" (= "sausages")
advertised for sale there have been "hot dogs" advertised for sale ...
perhaps with last-syllable stress.

But the pejorative nature of "dogs" (= "sausages") may have limited the use
of "dogs"/"hot dogs" by sausage vendors until -- circa 1895 maybe -- the
independent expression "hot-dog" = "skilled"/"good" (OED, 1896) provided an
attractive double-entendre? [After all, I'm sure "mystery meat" is still
consumed in the college dining hall, etc., but hardly anybody advertises
"hot mystery meat sandwiches" AFAIK.]

-- Doug Wilson