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.
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.
2 replies →
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.
13 replies →
> 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.