ハムとチーズが山型パンで、ほうれん草がチャバタです In this conversation (video clip): > > > > > > > > **** **** > I am not sure why is used here. makes sense, as in the utterance from one of the customers, since it's , but why ? Why doesn't the waitress use too? With it sounds to me almost like metonymy--as if stands in for the customer who ordered or the order with , but if that were the case wouldn't be a better word choice?

In both conversations, and are simply a way to refer to sandwiches by its filling - I suppose you say _Ham and cheese_ in English, too. So it can be called a metonymy but using fillings for sandwiches.

On the , practically you can use as well.

1. **** ****
2. **** ****
3. **** ****



To me, in this particular context, every pattern is ok, but using sounds a little like assuming the owner already knows that there are orders for ham&cheese and spinach, and may be less natural for that.

The usage should be so called (e.g. this). So 3 (and the sentence in question) means ' (and not other filligs) should use white bread' (btw: does English distinguish and not-?). This is close enough to , so interchangeable to some extent.