Date:  Thu, 6 Apr 1995 08:19:54 -0400

From:  David Muschell <dmuschel[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MAIL.GAC.PEACHNET.EDU>

Subject: Re: names to nouns



>> I'm not sure what you mean by "converse." When someone or something is

>> given a name for "the name's sake," even when that name is an eponym or

>> toponym, it is still a "namesake" naming: Nevada Smith, "in a New York

>> minute," Pecos Bill, Tex Ritter.

>

>If Little George is named for Uncle George, Little George is Uncle

>George's namesake. Is Uncle George Little George's eponym? Say Little

>George doesn't meet Uncle George until he's ten years old. When they

>meet, you might say to Uncle George, "I'm happy to introduce you to your

>namesake." Would you say to Little George, "I'm happy to introduce you

>to your eponym"?

>  --Natalie (maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ra.msstate.edu)



No. An eponym would be the real or mythical person from which a country,

city, religion, time frame (Napoleonic), etc. gets its name. Little George

would be told that Uncle George is his patronym (if "Big" George were his

Dad's brother) or his metronym (matronym is also acceptable--if George

"Senior" were Mom's sibling). Little George may not think it's so

wonderful that we have names for _everything_, but the Nymites gleefully

have designations for just about every variation.



David (my praenomen, from the Hebrew "beloved" [yeah, right] and the

ancient king from whom I get my homonymic name--I am _his_ homonym--or

maybe we are heteronyms, having the same spelling but different

pronunciations and meanings [though I secretly like the "beloved" thing, it

wasn't in Mom's mind when she named me. She just _liked_ the name.])