The original usage of Gourmand was synonymous with gluttony and excess; while a gourmet might be satisfied with exquisitely prepared micro portions tucked away within an expansive plate criss crossed by a drizzle of ??, a gourmand wants the full stack pyramided to the maximal stope angle.
No, it's an observation that the first primary usage seemed to disagree (not that it did) and so it was observed that the second alt was used by the commenter above
OED has a lot to say about gourmand, Chesterfield in his 1758 letter that you quoted was saying that the Landgrave has a well stocked table .. good food and a lot of it, for he is a Gourmand. Following that Chesterfield example is a 1816 Coleridge extract from Statesman's Man that also about having a lot (but with no talent for preparation) - excess over taste:
Their best cooks have no more idea of dressing a turtle than the gourmands themselves
And, again, the first 1a primary most common usage cited in the OED is:
1. a. One who is over-fond of eating, one who eats greedily or to excess, a glutton.
It's a usage that has morphed in recent times, sure .. but as seen in the OED for a great deal of time the emphasis has always been on the quantity of good food rather than mere quality of good food.
This really gets on my nerves. ishouldstayaway provided a perfectly valid resource to support the initial statement that gourmand isn't just about quantity anymore.
> Well, you had to go to #2
This is clearly a disparaging remark meant to discredit their comment. So what if it's #2? It's a definition in multiple dictionaries. This usage warranted its own definition.
> in an American English dictionary
Same thing here- italicizing American as if it means anything. Again, both Merriam Webster and the OED carry both definitions.
> It's a usage that has morphed in recent times, sure
"Recent" being 1758. 268 years. Long enough that it doesn't warrant a nit anymore.
> the first 1a primary
Again: the non-quantity usage warranted a dictionary definition.
> Following that Chesterfield example is a 1816 Coleridge extract
Ignoring the 1804 extract before that and the extracts after it.
All in all I find this type of interaction (needing to be "correct" instead of accepting that there are multiple usages) to be extremely distasteful, leaving a sour taste in my mouth.
Gourmand still, in large parts of the English speaking world, carries large overtones of excessive eating under the guise of quality eating.
If I were to make a guess, I suspect that in your part of the world some of the French persuasion made frequent reference to those that overstack their plates as gourmands and it has since locally become synonymous with gourmet as the troll escaped them.
American here, only every heard it meaning someone who likes fancy food.
Never heard of it being a fat person, except in so far as the word is old fashioned enough to conjure the image of a fancy dressed fat person eating fancy food.
Same. "Gourmand" has always been linked to "gourmet" in my brain. However wrong according to the "dictionaries", I've seen it mean the same in colloquial use in a couple of languages I'm familiar with.
Your original “well actually” is incorrect by your own admission. The correct statement is “a gourmand [was] [in some sense] the opposite of a gourmet”.
Not as punchy. I can see why you exaggerated, but as a fellow pedant I can’t approve of the misinformation.
Nit of the nit: there are multiple usages and one of them is
> One who is fond of delicate fare; a judge of good eating. (Cf. gourmet n.)
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/gourmand_adj?tab=meaning_and_...
How so?
Quantity.
The original usage of Gourmand was synonymous with gluttony and excess; while a gourmet might be satisfied with exquisitely prepared micro portions tucked away within an expansive plate criss crossed by a drizzle of ??, a gourmand wants the full stack pyramided to the maximal stope angle.
> The original usage of Gourmand was synonymous with gluttony and excess; while a gourmet might be satisfied with exquisitely prepared micro portions
Even if you removed the word "might", they wouldn't be opposites. With it, they're even further from opposites.
> they're even further from opposites.
I made no claim they were opposites, read again, that was another commenter.
I answered the question as to the distinction between two words, I did not assert the two words were opposite.
> I made no claim they were opposites, read again, that was another commenter.
I didn't say you made the claim. "Read again" right back at you...?
But come on, the comment you replied to was "How so?", asking how they were opposites.
You were clearly reinforcing the claim with your answer. If you didn't want to do that, you should have started with something like "They're not, but"
2: one who is heartily interested in good food and drink
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourmand
Been a long time since it was purely about quantity.
Well, you had to go to #2 of several definitions in an American English dictionary for that secondary devolved meaning.
Additionally, "heartily interested" in English usage implies an enthusiastic excess, large amounts, etc.
Still, it appears we agree about the original and primary usage.
As does your link via #1
You're doing okay on stope angle I'm guessing.
"Going to definition #2" is an arbitrary rule that you just made up. Same with an American dictionary vs British or whatever.
The Oxford dictionary also has both definitions, with the general use going back to 1758.
> 2.1758–One who is fond of delicate fare; a judge of good eating. (Cf. gourmet n.)
[0]: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/gourmand_adj?tab=meaning_and_...
> an arbitrary rule that you just made up.
No, it's an observation that the first primary usage seemed to disagree (not that it did) and so it was observed that the second alt was used by the commenter above
OED has a lot to say about gourmand, Chesterfield in his 1758 letter that you quoted was saying that the Landgrave has a well stocked table .. good food and a lot of it, for he is a Gourmand. Following that Chesterfield example is a 1816 Coleridge extract from Statesman's Man that also about having a lot (but with no talent for preparation) - excess over taste:
And, again, the first 1a primary most common usage cited in the OED is: It's a usage that has morphed in recent times, sure .. but as seen in the OED for a great deal of time the emphasis has always been on the quantity of good food rather than mere quality of good food.This really gets on my nerves. ishouldstayaway provided a perfectly valid resource to support the initial statement that gourmand isn't just about quantity anymore.
> Well, you had to go to #2
This is clearly a disparaging remark meant to discredit their comment. So what if it's #2? It's a definition in multiple dictionaries. This usage warranted its own definition.
> in an American English dictionary
Same thing here- italicizing American as if it means anything. Again, both Merriam Webster and the OED carry both definitions.
> It's a usage that has morphed in recent times, sure
"Recent" being 1758. 268 years. Long enough that it doesn't warrant a nit anymore.
> the first 1a primary
Again: the non-quantity usage warranted a dictionary definition.
> Following that Chesterfield example is a 1816 Coleridge extract
Ignoring the 1804 extract before that and the extracts after it.
All in all I find this type of interaction (needing to be "correct" instead of accepting that there are multiple usages) to be extremely distasteful, leaving a sour taste in my mouth.
> instead of accepting that there are multiple usages
Yeah, maybe slow your roll and think about that, along with everything else you've projected.
Clearly I accepted there are multiple usages, I specifically mentioned multiple definitions above.
> Clearly I accepted there are multiple usages, I specifically mentioned multiple definitions above.
You mentioned it in a way that makes #2 sound irrelevant because it's not the "original and primary definition" and diminished it with "recent times".
This is what people are taking issue with.
You're not actually accepting that definition as a proper definition. You're treating it like a minor offshoot.
And I have no idea why you think they're projecting.
I accepted it as a secondary definition (because, as numbered, it is a secondary definition) that also happens to support the primary definition;
I suspect the two commenters are reading more into my comments than was intended.Let me guess: you're also the kind of insufferable (and similarly incorrect) pedant who insists that "decimate" still means "reduce by one tenth"?
No.
Try harder.
Gourmand still, in large parts of the English speaking world, carries large overtones of excessive eating under the guise of quality eating.
If I were to make a guess, I suspect that in your part of the world some of the French persuasion made frequent reference to those that overstack their plates as gourmands and it has since locally become synonymous with gourmet as the troll escaped them.
American here, only every heard it meaning someone who likes fancy food.
Never heard of it being a fat person, except in so far as the word is old fashioned enough to conjure the image of a fancy dressed fat person eating fancy food.
Same. "Gourmand" has always been linked to "gourmet" in my brain. However wrong according to the "dictionaries", I've seen it mean the same in colloquial use in a couple of languages I'm familiar with.
I have lived in the United States for all of my 59 years and have never heard or seen it used as meaning anything other than glutton.
Which is really no better evidence than you offer.
> Nit: a gourmand is the opposite of a gourmet
> The original usage of Gourmand was
Your original “well actually” is incorrect by your own admission. The correct statement is “a gourmand [was] [in some sense] the opposite of a gourmet”.
Not as punchy. I can see why you exaggerated, but as a fellow pedant I can’t approve of the misinformation.