Talk:Namesake/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jargon?

Hi guys, I'm looking at the following:

"In the United States, the term is often used for a person or thing actually named after, rather than merely sharing the name of another.[2] For example, if a person, place, or thing is named after another person, place, or thing, then the name target is said to be the namesake of the name source."

I don't think the second sentence adds anything. It says the same as the first one, only less succinctly. It's not an example but rather an attempt at clarification.

Anyway, I'm actually more worried by the use of the phrases "name target" and "name source". This seems like unneccessary jargon. Is it even legitimate jargon - i.e., in scholarly use - or is it something that an editor has coined to try to make the point? I'll check back in a couple of days, and if no one's defended it, I'll strike the whole sentence.Señor Service (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Name target" doesn't make any sense to me. I think I would assume it was the name source, that is, the person whose name was targetted for use by another person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.66.52 (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Name target" sounds like jargon to me. "Name recipient" would be better.77Mike77 (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Eponym

The opposite of namesake (the person, place or thing someone else is named after) may be eponym. I am not certain whether this word refers only to the person after which institutions and things or named, or if it can also apply to people after which people are named. Would anyone care to verify this?

The above is a question from an anon, I moved it here. Pakaran (ark a pan) 18:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Limited Definition

The AHD says: "a person or thing named after another."

The OED says: "a person or thing having the same name as another."

The article was incorrect in that it limited the whole thing onesidedly. Guernseykid 04:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Earliest example?

I have a letter from the CEECS corpus in front of me (a letter written in 1617 by Oliver Naylor) which has the following sentence in it:

I have sent Mr. Allen woord, for name's sake.

does that qualify as an earlier definition than in the article? 131.130.224.28 (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

External links?

Since this article is rather restrictive by content, I don't know if it's okay to make a separate external links section. Just in case here's an online LIFE Magazine article related to namesake. (People Who Became Nouns) Komitsuki (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

US usage?

I don't know about usage other than in Britain, where namesake is really a dictionary, not encyclopaedia, entry, simply two people or things with the same name, e.g., prime minister Winston Churchill used his middle initial, S., to avoid confusion with his unrelated namesake Winston Churchill (novelist), who had prior right to the shorter name, being born earlier. The ship Queen Elizabeth II would be said to be "named after" HM Queen Elizabeth II, never a namesake. The article before I edited it had an introduction which said trenchantly that a namesake was always named after, not just the same name. I don't know if that is universal US usage, or just the (unreferenced) opinion of whoever originally wrote it. I think the article needs referenced information about actual US usage from someone who knows it well. not just dictionary definitions. UK (and earlier English) usage is quite clear from the OED: "A person who or thing which has the same name as another". Full stop. Pol098 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)