7 ms·

Nit: a gourmand is the opposite of a gourmet

by variaga 4mo ago

ishouldstayaway 4mo ago
How so?
- defrost 4mo 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.
  - ishouldstayaway 4mo ago
    2: one who is heartily interested in good food and drink https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourmand https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourmand Been a long time since it was purely about quantity.
    - defrost 4mo 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.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - huimang 4mo ago
        "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_use https://www.oed.com/dictionary/gourmand_adj?tab=meaning_and_...
        defrost 4mo ago
        > 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.
        huimang 4mo ago
        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 4mo ago
        > 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.
      - ishouldstayaway 4mo ago
        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 4mo ago
        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.
        com2kid 4mo ago
        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.
        JackFr 4mo ago
        I have lived in the United States for all of my 59 years and have never heard or seen it used as meaning anything other than glutton. Which is really no better evidence than you offer.
        stasomatic 4mo ago
        Same. "Gourmand" has always been linked to "gourmet" in my brain. However wrong according to the "dictionaries", I've seen it mean the same in colloquial use in a couple of languages I'm familiar with.
  - Dylan16807 4mo ago
    > 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 4mo ago
      > 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 4mo ago
        > 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"
  - gilrain 4mo ago
    > 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.
huimang 4mo ago
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_use https://www.oed.com/dictionary/gourmand_adj?tab=meaning_and_...

Nit: a gourmand is the opposite of a gourmet

by variaga 4mo ago

Nit: a gourmand is the opposite of a gourmet

ishouldstayaway 4mo ago

How so?

defrost 4mo 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.
- ishouldstayaway 4mo ago
  2: one who is heartily interested in good food and drink https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourmand https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourmand Been a long time since it was purely about quantity.
  - defrost 4mo 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.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - huimang 4mo ago
      "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_use https://www.oed.com/dictionary/gourmand_adj?tab=meaning_and_...
      - defrost 4mo ago
        > 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.
        huimang 4mo ago
        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 4mo ago
        > 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.
    - ishouldstayaway 4mo ago
      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 4mo ago
        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.
        com2kid 4mo ago
        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.
        JackFr 4mo ago
        I have lived in the United States for all of my 59 years and have never heard or seen it used as meaning anything other than glutton. Which is really no better evidence than you offer.
        stasomatic 4mo ago
        Same. "Gourmand" has always been linked to "gourmet" in my brain. However wrong according to the "dictionaries", I've seen it mean the same in colloquial use in a couple of languages I'm familiar with.
- Dylan16807 4mo ago
  > 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 4mo ago
    > 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 4mo ago
      > 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"
- gilrain 4mo ago
  > 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.

huimang 4mo ago

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_use https://www.oed.com/dictionary/gourmand_adj?tab=meaning_and_...