I think someone has made a mistake. When I hear the word gourmand, I immediately think of a really huge person just stuffing food into their mouth. Not something I would want to be called for sure.

gourmand - a person who is devoted to eating and drinking to excess

gourmet - a person devoted to refined sensuous enjoyment (especially good food and drink)

That's just an dictionary app on my phone, but I suspect more authoritative dictionaries make the distinction as well.

You should point this out to the event organizers. It is a mistake that reflects poorly on them.

Don't confuse a gourmet or a gourmand with a glutton.
A gourmand is one who enjoys eating and food, a gourmet is a connoisseur of fine foods, a glutton enjoys food in quantity.

But to gourmandize means to over enjoy food...as on thanksgiving.

The event seems to be aimed at people who enjoy food and eating, rather than those who are interested in the fine details of preparation.

dictionary.com gives two definitions:

noun
1. a person who is fond of good eating, often indiscriminatingly and to excess.
2. a gourmet; epicure.

I would guess that some might use gourmand because gourmet seems to be more commonly used as an adjective than a noun, whereas gourmand sounds more noun-like.

Grammar has gone to the dogs in this country.

Cheryl

Some dictionaries do not define gourmand as one who eats to excess, but enough of them do that I would still wish NOT to be called a gourmand.

I suspect that changes have been made to some dictionaries over time (yes, I have seen definitions change).

"Ain't" was not a word when I was a kid, even though people said it, but it is now recognized as such.

From seeing the word in context in old writings, I have always thought of a gourmand as a priggish gourmet.

Ruthanna, I've thought of them as a piggish gourmet! Definitely a step up from a glutton, who is only interested in quantity and frequency, not quantity and quality.

Check the Mirriam-Webster dictionary....THE authority.

And scroll down and check synonyms

Here is a link that might be useful: gourmand

The root for the word gourmand or gourmandise is the equivalent of "glutton", and so it seems reasonable to keep the association.

I found it interesting that gourmet comes from Old French "gromet" meaning "serving boy", or from Middle English "grom" meaning "boy" or "valet".

In SoCal, "grommet" means a young boy interested in surfing or a very young surfer. They must have gotten that from Middle English or Old French also.

Language seems (to me) to be changing at a faster pace than it did during most of the 20th Century, which was one of the most stable periods, probably because printed matter was so prevalent and schools were perhaps most standardized. We have a hard time understanding English before Shakespeare (who was one of the first standards used), and even his contemporary Edmund Spenser is somewhat obscure. While studying English and German literature at university, I checked out many old books, going back to the 17th Century, and I noticed a lot of different spellings from early editions as well as a lot of what today would be considered gross grammatical errors. I also noticed that most American grammatical errors have origins in England, and most are not new or recent a all. I prefer a standardized grammar that is logical, but unfortunately, English does not like to be logical or to follow rules. Russian is worse, however, and has more rules and more exceptions to rules than English. German in the 17th Century did not have a recognizable standard, due to the influence of the Thirty Years War from 1618 to 1648. The Grimm brothers helped standardize German around 1800 with the massive dictionary that they began, and German before 1700 (not that long ago) is like a foreign language to modern speakers.

As I hear language morphing into something I can barely understand any more, I take comfort in knowing that I won't be around too very much longer to have to listen to it!

I tend not to use the words "gourmet" or "gourmand" because I think they get overused, and I also think that both have negative connotations - "gourmet" often makes me think of "snob", and "gourmand" makes me think of "glutton" - I just have not gotten past those associations.

Lars

A bon vivant? Hmmm.

Lars, I agree about the language changing quickly. A bomb used to be a bad thing, sick used to be something you didn't want to be and friend was a noun, not a verb.

Yes, I also get the snootiness of gourmet.

Yes, Merriam-Webster uses these phrases: "excessively fond" and "heartily interested", both of which still lead me to lean toward "gluttonous". Even the synonyms sound like either snobbery or gluttony (eating without bothering to taste). Either way, it does not strike me as a complimentary description.

Foodie?

:-)? :-( ?

dcarch

In my long ago youth I was taught that "gourmand" has connotations of gluttony, and I too cringe when I see the word used when the writer clearly means "lovers of good food". I would prefer they use dcarch's suggestion of "foodie" rather than "gourmand".
I notice Merriam-Webster suggests "one who is excessively fond of food" as the first definition, which hints to me that the second, "one who is heartily fond..." is more bowing to the modern redefinition of the word. Dictionary definitions are constantly being updated to reflect modern usage (or misusage).

For me, a "gourmand" would salivate at the site of a plate of brownies, and want to sample them.

a "goinfre "( glutton) would stuff himself and eat the whole plate, no matter if they are of high quality or not

a "gourmet" would want to know what brand of chocolate was used to bake those - those are the nuances I hear when each word is used.

I noticed that in recent years, gourmand is interchanged with gourmet, without the bad gluttony connotation.

Restaurants in Montreal, "les plaisirs gourmands" "Pete le gourmand" "les copains gourmands" etc.

Interesting.

I certainly learned something about the perception of these words.... I had always linked "Gourmand" with one who enjoys eating fine foods and a "Gourmet" with one wo enjoys preparing fine foods.

As in a "Gourmet Chef".

I often, and lovingly, have referred to my younger son as The Little Gourmand, because he has a wonderfully developed palate and has always enjoyed more mature flavors and preparations. That said, he has no interest in cooking but will bake on occasion.

You can be sure I will not be using that term on this forum again, lest you all think of my son as a glutton.

Alexa

Most of the gluttons I know will not eat low quality food.

dcarch

This reminds me of sitting around my grandmother's table debating word meanings, connotations and evolution. Leading to extensive consultations with her enormous Oxford English Dictionary. It had 20 or so volumes with tiny print and very thin paper. Between that and an ancient Encyclopedia Britannica (which we called the E Bernardica after her) she felt fairly certain about almost everything.

LindaC makes the most sense.

:)

One problem is that language isn't static; meanings change all the time, and usually in the direction of ambiguity.

When I was a kid, the word 'disinterested' meant 'neutral, or objective'--now it's okay to use it as a synonym for 'uninterested'. The two meanings are far apart. You'd want a baseball umpire to be disinterested (in the sense that he shouldn't have an interest in whichever team won) but you wouldn't want him to be uninterested (and not paying attention to the game).

But I do agree: gourmand seems to have an underlying theme of overindulgence, rather than gourmet's appreciation of fine food.

Alexa - I was thinking of you with this thread! I doubt anyone ever thought of "The Little Gourmand" as anything but an endearing title.

This does not appear to be a case of quickly changing language. It seems that neither the negative nor positive connotations have changed much since these definitions from the 1962 Oxford Dictionary:

1) gluttonous, fond of eating
2) judge or devotee of good eating
3) to eat greedily

Ooops. The Little Gourmand -- a great nickname. Funny, but when you call him that I envision a boy with a hearty teenage appetite who appreciates good food. A nice combination. Don't change it!

I agree, with Rob, LindaC has the most common-sense explanation.

Dcarch, I disagree, I often see gluttons sitting down at McDonald's or at Makayla's favorite restaurant, Golden Corral, or various other "all you can eat" buffets. The food isn't good, but it's plentiful and they'll often go back for plate after plate.

Makayla will go there so she can have pizza, mac and cheese and cotton candy, all at one meal, LOL. I can fill up with a baked sweet potato, fresh fruit from the salad bar, some cottage cheese, probably baked fish. Other people around me will fill plates with potato salad, noodle dishes, gravy covered entrees of questionable origin. It's all high fat, high carb, inexpensive and low quality, but it's cheap and it's all you can eat.

I'd think "Man vs Food" as gluttony, "No Reservations" as gourmet and the bald guy who eats anything as a gourmand.

Annie

A way to see many gluttons in action gathered at one place is to take a cruise and attend the Midnight Buffet. :(

Alexa, I also noticed your DS's nickname and like Pam thought you were just saying he ate with the gusto of a teenage boy - normal, IMO. I sure never thought for a second you were calling him gluttonous.

/tricia

Tricia: you're right about cruise lines. I've never seen such pig-outs before.

Consider the demographics of cruises: seniors, newly married couples, and some who go for the endless amount of food. That prompted one wag to say that cruises are aimed at "the newly wed, the overfed and the nearly dead".

So I prepare a lovely meal for my guests, salad, perhaps a pot roast with mashed potatoes and gravy and oven roasted veggies...basket of home made rolls and apple pie with ice cream to follow.
The gourmet says "Lovely!...is that a cabernet you used in the gravy? Oh and do I taste a hint of summer savory too?" The gourmand says, "Beautiful! I love pot roast and gravy. Oh and roasted vegetables with garlic...mmmm soo good!" The glutton eats everything on his plate, accepts seconds when offered and helps clear the table and while in the kitchen eats another piece of meat from the serving platter and cleans out the mashed potato bowl and licks the spoon.

A gourmet is interested in fine dining and the preparation of such. A Gourmand loves good food, be it old fashioned home cooking or fancier fare, a glutton is just interested in getting aas much food as possible into his ( or her) gut.

I remember putting a plate of cookies on the table for dessert. Hearing my son say..."How many can we have?" and I said...."as many as you want, but don't be a glutton".

I also know of a mens dining club called, something like The Company of Gourmands

Lots of words can have a different connotation to some people either because if misinformation or because of a previous association.

Well, Lindac is right. There's nothing greedy about being a gourmand. It's funny, but I can't think of any English words that could be used instead of French. Foodie is rather modern, albeit good.

"Foodie" to me sounds a little like "groupie"....How about "Foodanista"...?
Frankly I see nothing wrong with the good old words.

I've never liked the term Foodie, sounds contrived and every bit as exclusive/pretentious as Gourmet. I've given this some thought and have decided that henceforth I'll label myself a Food Enthusiast. To me that describes my higher-than-average interest in food without setting any expectations as to my knowledge, palate or culinary skills.

So, it's actually Foodenthusiastonastump? FEOAS?

After careful consideration, I have decided to become a Cuisino.

Why not a Cuisinartist?

The correct word has to be "epicure", don't you think?

Annie, if you don't have a television set, then how
do you know about 'Man vs Food', No Reservations,
and the bald guy who eats anything?

I think "food opportunist" suits me.

:) E

lbpod, I don't watch any of those shows but if you use the internet and have an interest in cooking, they are inescapable, plus they are talked about here.

Good one, Eileen.

What Eileen said.

For some reason, my favorite show on Food Network is Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives. I do watch Chopped occasionally, but otherwise I don't watch FN and so I do not know about 'Man vs Food', No Reservations, and the bald guy who eats anything. I will watch cooking shows on PBS, but the FN shows are not very informative, except for DDD, which gives me a lot of inspiration for things to make and how to make them.

Lars

Love DDD....my son and his 3 sons did a DDD pilgrimage across the midwest last summer. From The Chicago area in a zig zag pattern to the BB hall of fame in Coopers town. He documented it all on FB....and those 3 teenage boys loved it!!!

Lars, none of those three shows is on the food Network. I think No Reservations and man vs Food is on the discovery channel, maybe? Also the bald guy is named Andrew Zimmern, I had to look it up!

Annie