Comment by defrost
13 hours ago
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_...
5 replies →
Let me guess: you're also the kind of insufferable (and similarly incorrect) pedant who insists that "decimate" still means "reduce by one tenth"?
4 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.