6 ms·
> It is kind of fascinating, having come from such a culture, to realize that in the end, Americans, at least the average of the America I met, are not nearly b
by Terr_ 6mo ago
> It is kind of fascinating, having come from such a culture, to realize that in the end, Americans, at least the average of the America I met, are not nearly brand conscious as I and everyone in my place supposed them to be.
Speaking as an American with a formative decade overseas, I think some of that may come from the economics of international trade.
People think about a faraway place based on what gets transported and sold from there. If a country's most-visible exports are gourmet food, you'd start thinking that perhaps the average resident is a gourmand. In the case of the US, those "cultural exports" often involve branded goods, copyrighted media, food franchises, etc.
- variaga 6mo agoNit: a gourmand is the opposite of a gourmet
- ishouldstayaway 6mo agoHow so?
- defrost 6mo agoQuantity. 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 6mo ago2: 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 6mo agoWell, 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 6mo ago[deleted]
- huimang 6mo 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 6mo 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.
- Dylan16807 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo agoNit 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_...
- antihipocrat 6mo agoThe brand that's 'Australian for beer' is very difficult to find in its domestic market!
- naruhodo 6mo agoThat brand was in fact created for the American market, I recall. Australians also don't talk about "throwing another shrimp on the barbie". That's another Americanism. We call them prawns.