> 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:
Their best cooks have no more idea of dressing a turtle than the gourmands themselves
1. a. One who is over-fond of eating, one who eats greedily or to excess, a glutton.
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.