Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 Ches…
> 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.