[huimang]

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.

[defrost]

> 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.

[Dylan16807]

> 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.

[defrost]

I accepted it as a secondary definition (because, as numbered, it is a secondary definition) that also happens to support the primary definition;

  Additionally, "heartily interested" in English usage implies an enthusiastic excess, large amounts, etc.

I suspect the two commenters are reading more into my comments than was intended.