[variaga]

Nit: a gourmand is the opposite of a gourmet

[huimang]

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_...

[ishouldstayaway]

How so?

[defrost]

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.

[Dylan16807]

> 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.

[defrost]

> 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.

[Dylan16807]

> 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"

[ishouldstayaway]

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.

[defrost]

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.

[huimang]

"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_...

[defrost]

> 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

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.

[ishouldstayaway]

Let me guess: you're also the kind of insufferable (and similarly incorrect) pedant who insists that "decimate" still means "reduce by one tenth"?

[defrost]

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.

[gilrain]

> 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.