> 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 corr

> 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.