Comment by defrost
13 hours ago
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_...
> 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:
And, again, the first 1a primary most common usage cited in the OED is:
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.
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.
3 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"?
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.
American here, only every heard it meaning someone who likes fancy food.
Never heard of it being a fat person, except in so far as the word is old fashioned enough to conjure the image of a fancy dressed fat person eating fancy food.
2 replies →