Discussion:
Loose men
(too old to reply)
David Kleinecke
2017-05-16 17:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?

Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.

I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Janet
2017-05-16 17:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
My grand-daughter calls her winter tights/leggings strumpfies,
(iirc, short for strumpfhosen).

Janet
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 18:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
"Rake" is the only word I can think of (off the top
of my head), but is obsolete. Hogarth keeps it alive
amongst educated people.
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-16 19:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
"Rake" is the only word I can think of (off the top
of my head), but is obsolete. Hogarth keeps it alive
amongst educated people.
Does Stravinsky help?

/dps "or Auden or Kallman?"
Tony Cooper
2017-05-16 19:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
"Rake" is the only word I can think of (off the top
of my head), but is obsolete. Hogarth keeps it alive
amongst educated people.
Does Stravinsky help?
Using "rake" today would be an unfortunate choice.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bill van
2017-05-17 00:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
"Rake" is the only word I can think of (off the top
of my head), but is obsolete. Hogarth keeps it alive
amongst educated people.
Does Stravinsky help?
Using "rake" today would be an unfortunate choice.
Philanderer has a nice ring.
--
bill
bert
2017-05-16 18:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
--
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 18:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.

"Stud"?
Tony Cooper
2017-05-16 20:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 16 May 2017 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
You could get crude and use "cockhound" or "cocksman".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Harrison Hill
2017-05-16 20:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 16 May 2017 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
You could get crude and use "cockhound" or "cocksman".
Not in BrE because I've never heard of either. A sign
of the sexism we have in English - as it tries to
distinguish the promiscuous gender.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-17 07:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 16 May 2017 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo",
"Gigolo" doesn't mean that.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Harrison Hill
but they are all obsolete.
It's not obsolete, either: it's still the standard term for a man who
makes his living by being nice to rich older women.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Harrison Hill
Plenty
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
You could get crude and use "cockhound" or "cocksman".
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-17 13:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 16 May 2017 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo",
"Gigolo" doesn't mean that.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Harrison Hill
but they are all obsolete.
It's not obsolete, either: it's still the standard term for a man who
makes his living by being nice to rich older women.
That's a euphemism.

The ones who don't necessarily do it for monetary gain are "boytoys," and the
women they are with are "cougars."
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Harrison Hill
Plenty
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
You could get crude and use "cockhound" or "cocksman".
LFS
2017-05-17 13:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 16 May 2017 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo",
"Gigolo" doesn't mean that.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Harrison Hill
but they are all obsolete.
It's not obsolete, either: it's still the standard term for a man who
makes his living by being nice to rich older women.
That's a euphemism.
The ones who don't necessarily do it for monetary gain are "boytoys,"
Toyboys in the UK.

and the
Post by Peter T. Daniels
women they are with are "cougars."
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Harrison Hill
Plenty
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
You could get crude and use "cockhound" or "cocksman".
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-17 23:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 16 May 2017 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo",
"Gigolo" doesn't mean that.
When I was in college in the '80s, this question came up, and one person
said that where he came from "gigolo" and "gig" were used that way.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Harrison Hill
but they are all obsolete.
It's not obsolete, either: it's still the standard term for a man who
makes his living by being nice to rich older women.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Harrison Hill
Plenty
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
You could get crude and use "cockhound" or "cocksman".
As I'm afraid I've mentioned here before, a friend said her recent
boyfriend was a public utility.
--
Jerry Friedman
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2017-05-17 23:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
You could get crude and use "cockhound" or "cocksman".
As I'm afraid I've mentioned here before, a friend said her
recent boyfriend was a public utility.
Is that a typo for "pubic utility"?
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
HVS
2017-05-18 00:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:40:21 AM UTC-4, Athel
Post by Tony Cooper
You could get crude and use "cockhound" or "cocksman".
As I'm afraid I've mentioned here before, a friend said her recent
boyfriend was a public utility.
Although it refers to women rather than men, that's similar to "the
village bicycle ".

(I don't know the geographic distribution of that one; I heard it
used here in Hampshire in reference to a local girl who married a
royal.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years),
indiscriminately mixed
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-16 21:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty
!!!

Is thst HH in "yobbo" mode again?
Post by Harrison Hill
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
Generally taken as positive.
CDB
2017-05-16 23:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty of words
for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their male
equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
"Slut" sometimes, but usually in tones of admiration.
Jack Campin
2017-05-16 23:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty of
words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their male
equivalence/equivalents.
"Philanderer" is only slightly obsolete (or in Arthur Miller's
"Death of Salesman" [1949], "philandering bum").

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Quinn C
2017-05-17 21:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Post by bert
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty of
words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their male
equivalence/equivalents.
"Philanderer" is only slightly obsolete (or in Arthur Miller's
"Death of Salesman" [1949], "philandering bum").
I think I still see it used, but I associate it with older and
usually married men. Is it just me?
--
- It's the title search for the Rachel property.
Guess who owns it?
- Tell me it's not that bastard Donald Trump.
-- Gilmore Girls, S02E08 (2001)
Will Parsons
2017-05-18 00:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jack Campin
Post by bert
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty of
words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their male
equivalence/equivalents.
"Philanderer" is only slightly obsolete (or in Arthur Miller's
"Death of Salesman" [1949], "philandering bum").
I think I still see it used, but I associate it with older and
usually married men. Is it just me?
For me at any rate, a "philanderer" is *always* married, and the term implies
(multiple) infidelities (so, not the same think as a "rake", e.g.).
--
Will
Quinn C
2017-05-18 13:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jack Campin
Post by bert
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty of
words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their male
equivalence/equivalents.
"Philanderer" is only slightly obsolete (or in Arthur Miller's
"Death of Salesman" [1949], "philandering bum").
I think I still see it used, but I associate it with older and
usually married men. Is it just me?
For me at any rate, a "philanderer" is *always* married, and the term implies
(multiple) infidelities (so, not the same think as a "rake", e.g.).
I could see it extended to men who pretend to be in a committed,
monogamous relationship with at least one of his lovers, keeping
the others secret from her.

But even if he fits that description, I feel strange to use it on,
say, a college student.
--
Was den Juengeren fehlt, sind keine Botschaften, es ist der Sinn
fuer Zusammenhaenge. [Young people aren't short of messages, but
of a sense for interconnections.]
-- Helen Feng im Zeit-Interview
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-19 15:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jack Campin
Post by bert
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty of
words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their male
equivalence/equivalents.
"Philanderer" is only slightly obsolete (or in Arthur Miller's
"Death of Salesman" [1949], "philandering bum").
I think I still see it used, but I associate it with older and
usually married men. Is it just me?
For me at any rate, a "philanderer" is *always* married, and the term implies
(multiple) infidelities (so, not the same think as a "rake", e.g.).
So you wouldn't approve of "George, a constant and a choosy
philanderer, not much less successful now than he had been in youth,
introduced him to many women, and the Seventh Saint provided others,"
considering that George has always been single? (That's from one
of my favorite books, /Little, Big/, by John Crowley.)
--
Jerry Friedman
GordonD
2017-05-17 08:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by bert
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty of words
for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their male
equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
"Slut" sometimes, but usually in tones of admiration.
Not for a man, surely?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
CDB
2017-05-17 16:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by CDB
Post by bert
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty of
words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their male
equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
"Slut" sometimes, but usually in tones of admiration.
Not for a man, surely?
I have heard it spoken. It's all in the context: sometimes in response
to a boastful story, indicating half-belief at best. There seems to be
an element of irony in it, as in the groan that serves as applause after
a pun.
Simon Grushka
2017-05-21 09:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty
"gigolo" is a name for a male who keeps the company of older women, usually for money (or gifts). so- basically a prostitute (not that there would be anything wrong with it).

Where I have grow up- in Poland- there was somehow clear distinction between "don juan" and "casanova"- while both enjoyed female company (who doesn't?), the first one usually stop keeping in contact after the coitus (so, one-night-stands would be somehow similar to it), while the latter one had plenty of short-term, intensive relationships and did stay in contact with females after that (not necessarily for a shag, just socially). I hope it helps somehow.
Post by Harrison Hill
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
"Bull" would be the more appropriate- imho- (but less popular) term. Weren't the Romans describing "loose men" as bulls as well (taurus, tauri)?

sg
Janet
2017-05-21 11:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Simon Grushka
Post by Harrison Hill
"Don Juan" and "gigolo", but they are all obsolete. Plenty
"gigolo" is a name for a male who keeps the company of older women, usually for money (or gifts). so- basically a prostitute (not that there would be anything wrong with it).
Where I have grow up- in Poland- there was somehow clear distinction between "don juan" and "casanova"- while both enjoyed female company (who doesn't?), the first one usually stop keeping in contact after the coitus (so, one-night-stands would be somehow similar to it), while the latter one had plenty of short-term, intensive relationships and did stay in contact with females after that (not necessarily for a shag, just socially). I hope it helps somehow.
Post by Harrison Hill
of words for promiscuous modern women; none at all for their
male equivalence/equivalents.
"Stud"?
"Bull" would be the more appropriate- imho- (but less popular) term.
Weren't the Romans describing "loose men" as bulls as well (taurus,
tauri)?
In Wales I've heard men who perform well in bed, admiringly referred
to as rams.
Terms for sexually promiscuous/available men all carry a hint of male
admiration/knowing wink/ nice-work-if-you-can-get-it. Quite unlike the
sneering smear implied by "slut, tart, bike, mare, prostitute, slag,
whore," etc.

Janet
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-16 19:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
I thought "libertine" was adequate.
Don't both "libertine" and "rake" suggest a man who has some social rank to go with his wantoness? (Is wanton as a noun stictly for the female?)

/dps
Charles Bishop
2017-05-16 18:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Here’s an ancient joke on the subject:

Four scholars at Oxford were making their way down the street, and
happened to see a group of ladies of the evening. “What’s this?” said
the first. “A jam of tarts?” “Nay,” said the second, “an essay of
Trollope’s.” “Rather, a flourish of strumpets,” advanced the third. “No,
gentlemen,” concluded the last. “Here we have an anthology of pros.”

from http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/collectives.htm

since I checked to aid my memory.
--
charles
Sam Plusnet
2017-05-17 00:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
In another Usenet group, reference is sometimes made to Strumpets and
Strombones.

I commend it to the House.
--
Sam Plusnet
David Kleinecke
2017-05-17 01:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
In another Usenet group, reference is sometimes made to Strumpets and
Strombones.
I commend it to the House.
--
Sam Plusnet
Bravo Hi!
a***@gmail.com
2017-05-17 06:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
In another Usenet group, reference is sometimes made to Strumpets and
Strombones.
I commend it to the House.
--
Sam Plusnet
Bravo Hi!
Won't 'womanizer' do? I think it has negative connotations. Not as negative
a word as 'slut', I'd think, but still...

I think 'player' has positive connotations. There's 'playboy' too. But that too
is positive.

'Dissolute' is an adjective. Maybe 'dissolute man', or 'dissolute ...'?

Respectfully,
Navi.
Harrison Hill
2017-05-17 07:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
In another Usenet group, reference is sometimes made to Strumpets and
Strombones.
I commend it to the House.
--
Sam Plusnet
Bravo Hi!
Won't 'womanizer' do? I think it has negative connotations. Not as negative
a word as 'slut', I'd think, but still...
I think 'player' has positive connotations. There's 'playboy' too. But that too
is positive.
'Dissolute' is an adjective. Maybe 'dissolute man', or 'dissolute ...'?
Then there's "lounge lizard" or "dirty old man". Laura disses me
for a lack of respect for John Peel ("another great number from
The Undertones"); so for her: the ultimate lounge-lizard lighting
up The Old Grey Whistle Test. Any other oboe players in Rock Music?


Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-17 07:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
In another Usenet group, reference is sometimes made to Strumpets and
Strombones.
I commend it to the House.
--
Sam Plusnet
Bravo Hi!
Won't 'womanizer' do?
Yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I think it has negative connotations.
Yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
Not as negative
a word as 'slut', I'd think, but still...
Better than "slut", which has often been used for a woman.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I think 'player' has positive connotations. There's 'playboy' too. But that too
is positive.
'Dissolute' is an adjective. Maybe 'dissolute man', or 'dissolute ...'?
Respectfully,
Navi.
--
athel
LFS
2017-05-17 07:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
I think stud is the obvious one in use today. I've also heard swordsman.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
b***@aol.com
2017-05-17 14:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-17 16:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?>> Wkitionary does not give
"strumpet" a plausible
etymology.>> I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova
and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man",
"lecher" (?)
Spelling OK. Pronounced as if spelt letcher (['letʃəɹ]).
Post by b***@aol.com
and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which
sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-17 17:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?

Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
b***@aol.com
2017-05-17 18:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-17 21:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.

It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?

Such as?
b***@aol.com
2017-05-18 00:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
The challenge lie not in Juliet being possibly reluctant, but arguably
in the intractable enmity of the two families. Besides, all womanizers
are supposed to be attractive somehow, so it's no wonder Juliet felt
attracted too.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
For example, in H.G. Wells's "The Time Machine", said time machine
is the novel's eponym, but is by no means an antonomasia.

Conversely, I could have added that "The Bard (of Avon)" is an
antonomasia for Shakespeare but is not an eponym.

The two words do overlap to some extent but are far from interchangeable.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-18 03:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
The challenge lie not in Juliet being possibly reluctant, but arguably
in the intractable enmity of the two families. Besides, all womanizers
are supposed to be attractive somehow, so it's no wonder Juliet felt
attracted too.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
For example, in H.G. Wells's "The Time Machine", said time machine
is the novel's eponym, but is by no means an antonomasia.
That's quite a stretch.
Post by b***@aol.com
Conversely, I could have added that "The Bard (of Avon)" is an
antonomasia for Shakespeare but is not an eponym.
No, that's an epithet or even an appellative.
Post by b***@aol.com
The two words do overlap to some extent but are far from interchangeable.
Maybe you're bringing in a French distinction.
b***@aol.com
2017-05-18 05:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
The challenge lie not in Juliet being possibly reluctant, but arguably
in the intractable enmity of the two families. Besides, all womanizers
are supposed to be attractive somehow, so it's no wonder Juliet felt
attracted too.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
For example, in H.G. Wells's "The Time Machine", said time machine
is the novel's eponym, but is by no means an antonomasia.
That's quite a stretch.
Not at all, antonomasias are always based on proper names, but not so eponyms. Besides, an antonomasia always designates a member of a class (e.g. a Casanova for a seducer), whereas an eponym refers to an individual person or thing.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Conversely, I could have added that "The Bard (of Avon)" is an
antonomasia for Shakespeare but is not an eponym.
No, that's an epithet or even an appellative.
Which is not mutually exclusive with being an antonomasia, but much less accurate.

See e.g. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/antonomasia, (meaning 1):

"antonomasia

1 Linguistics
The substitution of an epithet or title for a proper name (e.g. the Maid
of Orleans for Joan of Arc).


2 The use of a proper name to express a general idea (e.g. a Scrooge for
a miser)."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
The two words do overlap to some extent but are far from interchangeable.
Maybe you're bringing in a French distinction.
No, see above.
GordonD
2017-05-19 08:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-19 08:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova
and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man",
"lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt
chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Do you really want to open that box again?
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 11:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Do you really want to open that box again?
Indeed. He's almost as bad as you. Though I do believe the two of you are discrete.
GordonD
2017-05-19 14:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Do you really want to open that box again?
I just wanted to poke the wasps' nest with a stick, to see what happened.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Indeed. He's almost as bad as you. Though I do believe the two of you are discrete.
Avoidance of a direct reply noted.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 18:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Do you really want to open that box again?
I just wanted to poke the wasps' nest with a stick, to see what happened.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Indeed. He's almost as bad as you. Though I do believe the two of you are discrete.
Avoidance of a direct reply noted.
Avoidance by whom?

As I said earlier, "Robin Hood" isn't an eponym, so irrelevant to the question.
GordonD
2017-05-19 18:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Do you really want to open that box again?
I just wanted to poke the wasps' nest with a stick, to see what happened.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Indeed. He's almost as bad as you. Though I do believe the two of you are discrete.
Avoidance of a direct reply noted.
Avoidance by whom?
As I said earlier, "Robin Hood" isn't an eponym, so irrelevant to the question.
But in a reply to a different post, which I hadn't read yet.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-20 03:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Do you really want to open that box again?
I just wanted to poke the wasps' nest with a stick, to see what happened.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Indeed. He's almost as bad as you. Though I do believe the two of you are discrete.
Avoidance of a direct reply noted.
Avoidance by whom?
As I said earlier, "Robin Hood" isn't an eponym, so irrelevant to the question.
But in a reply to a different post, which I hadn't read yet.
Since "Robin Hood" wouldn't be an example of an eponym that isn't a proper name
even if it were an eponym, it had nothing to do with bebe's remark in the first place.
Janet
2017-05-19 13:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@imm.cnrs.fr
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova
and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man",
"lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt
chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 14:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
Janet
2017-05-19 15:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.

Janet
Tony Cooper
2017-05-19 16:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.

I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
LFS
2017-05-19 16:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
The word is scot, not Scot, a type of tax. But I know you knew that, I'm
just nipping in here before those suffering a humour bypass try to score
points.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Tony Cooper
2017-05-19 16:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
The word is scot, not Scot, a type of tax. But I know you knew that, I'm
just nipping in here before those suffering a humour bypass try to score
points.
Unlike some, I am quite willing to admit to error or ignorance. I did
*not* know that it is "scot free" and some kind of tax. I assumed it
originated from some canny Scot escaping conviction of something
dastardly.

Just to nip further additions in the bud, "The Phrase Finder" says it
means "without incurring payment; or escaping without punishment" and
brings up the story of the American slave, Dred Scott, who wanted to
gain his freedom in a case that went to the Supreme Court. "The
Phrase Finder" debunks this as the source.

They go on to say that the phrase doesn't even have Scottish origins.
It comes from the Scandinavian word "skat". Full article at:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot-free.html

The shoe I'm waiting to hear dropped is Mark's questioning of the need
to hyphenate "scot free".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-05-19 17:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
The word is scot, not Scot, a type of tax. But I know you knew that, I'm
just nipping in here before those suffering a humour bypass try to score
points.
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off scot
free."
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Lanarcam
2017-05-19 17:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by LFS
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
The word is scot, not Scot, a type of tax. But I know you knew that, I'm
just nipping in here before those suffering a humour bypass try to score
points.
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off scot
free."
All that galls me.
musika
2017-05-19 18:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
--
Ray
UK
Mack A. Damia
2017-05-19 19:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
John Dunlop
2017-05-20 06:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
But still germane to the theme.
--
John
Mark Brader
2017-05-20 07:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
But still germane to the theme.
Still, what a turkey the guy was. What was he paying for anyway, some china?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Common sense isn't any more common on Usenet
***@vex.net | than it is anywhere else." --Henry Spencer
b***@aol.com
2017-05-20 14:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
But still germane to the theme.
Hun?
Post by John Dunlop
--
John
Mack A. Damia
2017-05-20 16:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
But still germane to the theme.
Hun?
I like her to sit on my lapp.
b***@aol.com
2017-05-20 16:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
But still germane to the theme.
Hun?
I like her to sit on my lapp.
Norway, she's not your Swede heart!
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-20 17:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
But still germane to the theme.
Hun?
I like her to sit on my lapp.
Norway, she's not your Swede heart!
I've heard that boiled swede with danish is very good.
--
athel
GordonD
2017-05-20 21:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
But still germane to the theme.
Hun?
I like her to sit on my lapp.
Norway, she's not your Swede heart!
I've heard that boiled swede with danish is very good.
You can't come into this thread without a Thai.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-21 05:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
That's a new angle.
But still germane to the theme.
Hun?
I like her to sit on my lapp.
Norway, she's not your Swede heart!
I've heard that boiled swede with danish is very good.
You can't come into this thread without a Thai.
You're up the pole with that one, but I won't lett you get away with it.
--
athel
Bart Dinnissen
2017-05-19 21:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by musika
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off
scot free."
All that galls me.
To be frank, you could have pict a better example.
Please don't yank his chain, he might still polish it ...
--
Bart Dinnissen
bill van
2017-05-19 22:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by LFS
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
The word is scot, not Scot, a type of tax. But I know you knew that, I'm
just nipping in here before those suffering a humour bypass try to score
points.
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off scot
free."
All that galls me.
There's a two-tonic cure for that.
--
bill
CDB
2017-05-20 01:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[eponymy, antonomasia, Hood]
Post by bill van
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by LFS
Post by Tony Cooper
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in
Scotland.
The word is scot, not Scot, a type of tax. But I know you knew
that, I'm just nipping in here before those suffering a humour
bypass try to score points.
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got
off scot free."
All that galls me.
There's a two-tonic cure for that.
I can tell you're all -- all! -- taking the piss here.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 18:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off scot
free."
... to put it in plain English.
GordonD
2017-05-19 18:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by LFS
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
The word is scot, not Scot, a type of tax. But I know you knew that, I'm
just nipping in here before those suffering a humour bypass try to score
points.
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off scot
free."
Using body English?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Richard Yates
2017-05-20 03:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 19 May 2017 18:36:05 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by LFS
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
The word is scot, not Scot, a type of tax. But I know you knew that, I'm
just nipping in here before those suffering a humour bypass try to score
points.
"He welshed on the payment but with the luck of the Irish got off scot
free."
...and so someone got gypped.
Janet
2017-05-19 16:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
I've used it in Scotland, so yes.

Janet
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-19 17:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
@gmail.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
I've used it in Scotland, so yes.
Have you ever got off scot free after welshing on your debts?
Post by Janet
--
athel
b***@aol.com
2017-05-19 17:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Janet
@gmail.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
PTD seldom escapes Scot free from his mistakes.
I wonder if that expression - "Scot free" - is used in Scotland.
I've used it in Scotland, so yes.
Have you ever got off scot free after welshing on your debts?
That would no doubt be a moral Ulster.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Janet
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 18:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
Did you recently learn that?

Or did you have thwarted designs on Nottinghamshire?
Sam Plusnet
2017-05-19 21:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
Robin Hood isn't an eponym. You can say "He's a regular Robin Hood" or "She's a
Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the rich" -- but they
don't engage in, say, robinhooding, or robinhoodish behavior -- compare "she
wears bloomers," "the British hussy hoovers the floor."
Post by Janet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you really want to open that box again?
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Robin hood, Robin hood, riding through the glen ...
He's not a Scot either.
Did you recently learn that?
Or did you have thwarted designs on Nottinghamshire?
Nottinghamshire is a glen-free zone.
--
Sam Plusnet
b***@aol.com
2017-05-19 14:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
Post by GordonD
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 18:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.

You could say "Robin Hood is the eponymous hero of *The Adventures of Robin Hood"
-- if you wanted to pretend to be educated. It's become quite the cliche.
b***@aol.com
2017-05-19 18:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You could say "Robin Hood is the eponymous hero of *The Adventures of Robin Hood"
-- if you wanted to pretend to be educated. It's become quite the cliche.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-20 03:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.

I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
b***@aol.com
2017-05-20 14:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became "antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
I have. Granted, Shakespeare's Romeo is not the epitome of a
"compulsive" womanizer, but for a Montague to seduce a Capulet
was quite a daunting challenge, which he successfully took up.
I wonder what version you saw or read. The attraction was instant and mutual.
It happens with 14-year-olds.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes, not all eponyms are proper or personal names.
?
Such as?
Robin Hood?
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-20 14:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers
The name is Bloomer, which gives a grammatical twist to the matter. It was
pluralized because all the other words for pants are plural.
Post by b***@aol.com
gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics of a
character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it.

Consider *The Greatest Story Ever Told*. Is that movie title an eponym for
Jesus, or for the New Testament? Of course not. It's a description.

A better example is *The Man Who Would Be King* (if I knew who it was about).
Eponym? or description?
b***@aol.com
2017-05-20 15:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers
The name is Bloomer, which gives a grammatical twist to the matter. It was
pluralized because all the other words for pants are plural.
Post by b***@aol.com
gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics of a
character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it.
The distinction is not relevant: "eponym" just means "giving one's name".
For instance, Christopher Columbus is the eponym of Columbus Circle but
the latter" isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics
of a character in it" either.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Consider *The Greatest Story Ever Told*. Is that movie title an eponym for
Jesus, or for the New Testament? Of course not. It's a description.
A better example is *The Man Who Would Be King* (if I knew who it was about).
Eponym? or description?
Certainly not an eponym, as the name must appear verbatim, not allusively,
in the title to be one.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-20 19:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers
The name is Bloomer, which gives a grammatical twist to the matter. It was
pluralized because all the other words for pants are plural.
Post by b***@aol.com
gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics of a
character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it.
The distinction is not relevant: "eponym" just means "giving one's name".
Etymology is no indication of meaning.
Post by b***@aol.com
For instance, Christopher Columbus is the eponym of Columbus Circle but
The word is not used that way.

Again, maybe you're transferring a French usage into English.
Post by b***@aol.com
the latter" isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics
of a character in it" either.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Consider *The Greatest Story Ever Told*. Is that movie title an eponym for
Jesus, or for the New Testament? Of course not. It's a description.
A better example is *The Man Who Would Be King* (if I knew who it was about).
Eponym? or description?
Certainly not an eponym, as the name must appear verbatim, not allusively,
in the title to be one.
Find examples in normal English usage of "King Lear" being called the eponym
of *King Lear*. Or maybe your claim is that *King Lear* is the eponym of King
Lear. As I noted long ago in the thread, Lear is the eponymous hero of the
play. The noun does not come into it.
b***@aol.com
2017-05-20 19:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers
The name is Bloomer, which gives a grammatical twist to the matter. It was
pluralized because all the other words for pants are plural.
Post by b***@aol.com
gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics of a
character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it.
The distinction is not relevant: "eponym" just means "giving one's name".
Etymology is no indication of meaning.
In this case, it is, as confirmed by the following definition
(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eponym):

"A person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
For instance, Christopher Columbus is the eponym of Columbus Circle but
The word is not used that way.
Yet my example is spot-on with the above definition, unless you dissociate a
person from their name (which I hope not).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Again, maybe you're transferring a French usage into English.
Again, no, see all English definitions of the word.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
the latter" isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics
of a character in it" either.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Consider *The Greatest Story Ever Told*. Is that movie title an eponym for
Jesus, or for the New Testament? Of course not. It's a description.
A better example is *The Man Who Would Be King* (if I knew who it was about).
Eponym? or description?
Certainly not an eponym, as the name must appear verbatim, not allusively,
in the title to be one.
Find examples in normal English usage of "King Lear" being called the eponym
of *King Lear*. Or maybe your claim is that *King Lear* is the eponym of King
Lear. As I noted long ago in the thread, Lear is the eponymous hero of the
play. The noun does not come into it.
That's a fallacy and you could also hold e.g. that Goneril's father is the
eponym of the play: he would somehow, but only because such title actually
refers to "King Lear".
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-21 03:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers
The name is Bloomer, which gives a grammatical twist to the matter. It was
pluralized because all the other words for pants are plural.
Post by b***@aol.com
gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics of a
character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it.
The distinction is not relevant: "eponym" just means "giving one's name".
Etymology is no indication of meaning.
In this case, it is, as confirmed by the following definition
"A person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named."
Which of the above -- discovery, invention, or place -- is a book? Are books
so insignificant as to be lumped into "etc."?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
For instance, Christopher Columbus is the eponym of Columbus Circle but
The word is not used that way.
Yet my example is spot-on with the above definition, unless you dissociate a
person from their name (which I hope not).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Again, maybe you're transferring a French usage into English.
Again, no, see all English definitions of the word.
Dictionaries do not, typically, lay out the usages of words.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
the latter" isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics
of a character in it" either.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Consider *The Greatest Story Ever Told*. Is that movie title an eponym for
Jesus, or for the New Testament? Of course not. It's a description.
A better example is *The Man Who Would Be King* (if I knew who it was about).
Eponym? or description?
Certainly not an eponym, as the name must appear verbatim, not allusively,
in the title to be one.
Find examples in normal English usage of "King Lear" being called the eponym
of *King Lear*. Or maybe your claim is that *King Lear* is the eponym of King
Lear. As I noted long ago in the thread, Lear is the eponymous hero of the
play. The noun does not come into it.
That's a fallacy and you could also hold e.g. that Goneril's father is the
eponym of the play: he would somehow, but only because such title actually
refers to "King Lear".
You evidently can't find examples to bolster your belief about the word.

I just did a NYT crossword with "Eponym of a day of the week" (6). Can you
discover the answer?
b***@aol.com
2017-05-21 06:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers
The name is Bloomer, which gives a grammatical twist to the matter. It was
pluralized because all the other words for pants are plural.
Post by b***@aol.com
gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics of a
character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it.
The distinction is not relevant: "eponym" just means "giving one's name".
Etymology is no indication of meaning.
In this case, it is, as confirmed by the following definition
"A person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named."
Which of the above -- discovery, invention, or place -- is a book? Are books
so insignificant as to be lumped into "etc."?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
For instance, Christopher Columbus is the eponym of Columbus Circle but
The word is not used that way.
Yet my example is spot-on with the above definition, unless you dissociate a
person from their name (which I hope not).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Again, maybe you're transferring a French usage into English.
Again, no, see all English definitions of the word.
Dictionaries do not, typically, lay out the usages of words.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
the latter" isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics
of a character in it" either.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Consider *The Greatest Story Ever Told*. Is that movie title an eponym for
Jesus, or for the New Testament? Of course not. It's a description.
A better example is *The Man Who Would Be King* (if I knew who it was about).
Eponym? or description?
Certainly not an eponym, as the name must appear verbatim, not allusively,
in the title to be one.
Find examples in normal English usage of "King Lear" being called the eponym
of *King Lear*. Or maybe your claim is that *King Lear* is the eponym of King
Lear. As I noted long ago in the thread, Lear is the eponymous hero of the
play. The noun does not come into it.
That's a fallacy and you could also hold e.g. that Goneril's father is the
eponym of the play: he would somehow, but only because such title actually
refers to "King Lear".
You evidently can't find examples to bolster your belief about the word.
Here are two quotations to that effect, among many others
(http://www.literarydevices.com/eponym/):


- "Definition of Eponym
An eponym is a person, place, or thing from which something takes its name.
Examples of eponyms are far-ranging, *from book titles* to time-periods to
medications."

...

- "There are also countless books named after the title character, which is
*another example of eponym*. Here are some famous examples of eponymous book
titles:

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J. K. Rowling (and the rest
of the Harry Potter series)
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton"

etc.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I just did a NYT crossword with "Eponym of a day of the week" (6). Can you
discover the answer?
No, because all seven days have (well-known) eponyms.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-21 12:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers
The name is Bloomer, which gives a grammatical twist to the matter. It was
pluralized because all the other words for pants are plural.
Post by b***@aol.com
gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics of a
character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it.
The distinction is not relevant: "eponym" just means "giving one's name".
Etymology is no indication of meaning.
In this case, it is, as confirmed by the following definition
"A person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named."
Which of the above -- discovery, invention, or place -- is a book? Are books
so insignificant as to be lumped into "etc."?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
For instance, Christopher Columbus is the eponym of Columbus Circle but
The word is not used that way.
Yet my example is spot-on with the above definition, unless you dissociate a
person from their name (which I hope not).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Again, maybe you're transferring a French usage into English.
Again, no, see all English definitions of the word.
Dictionaries do not, typically, lay out the usages of words.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
the latter" isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics
of a character in it" either.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Consider *The Greatest Story Ever Told*. Is that movie title an eponym for
Jesus, or for the New Testament? Of course not. It's a description.
A better example is *The Man Who Would Be King* (if I knew who it was about).
Eponym? or description?
Certainly not an eponym, as the name must appear verbatim, not allusively,
in the title to be one.
Find examples in normal English usage of "King Lear" being called the eponym
of *King Lear*. Or maybe your claim is that *King Lear* is the eponym of King
Lear. As I noted long ago in the thread, Lear is the eponymous hero of the
play. The noun does not come into it.
That's a fallacy and you could also hold e.g. that Goneril's father is the
eponym of the play: he would somehow, but only because such title actually
refers to "King Lear".
You evidently can't find examples to bolster your belief about the word.
Here are two quotations to that effect, among many others
You really have a problem with reading English. The following is _not_ a quotation
showing the usage of the word, but a dictionary definition.

And examples are given of the use of "eponymous," not of "eponym."
Post by b***@aol.com
- "Definition of Eponym
An eponym is a person, place, or thing from which something takes its name.
Examples of eponyms are far-ranging, *from book titles* to time-periods to
medications."
...
- "There are also countless books named after the title character, which is
*another example of eponym*. Here are some famous examples of eponymous book
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J. K. Rowling (and the rest
of the Harry Potter series)
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton"
etc.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I just did a NYT crossword with "Eponym of a day of the week" (6). Can you
discover the answer?
No, because all seven days have (well-known) eponyms.
Really? What's the eponym of "dimanche"?

In English, only one of them is six letters long.
b***@aol.com
2017-05-21 16:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
"Robin Hood" is interesting, as it is both a "double antonomasia", in that 1)
it may be an alias (though arguably also a real name - opinions diverge on
this) and 2) a "generic term" for someone heroic and generous, while being
an eponym as this name appears in the title of many works of fiction.
That's not what "eponym" means.
Of course it is, or maybe do you make the confusion between "eponym"
and "namesake"?
"Namesake" isn't a technical term in lexicography.
I gave examples of what "eponym" means. Bloomers, hoover, sideburns (alteration
of General Burnside's name).
Just like Bloomers
The name is Bloomer, which gives a grammatical twist to the matter. It was
pluralized because all the other words for pants are plural.
Post by b***@aol.com
gave her name to trousers, Hoover his to a vacuum cleaner,
Burnside to sidewhiskers, respectively and are therefore their eponyms, so
also a character giving their name to a novel is its eponym. What do you
think is wrong with that?
A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics of a
character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it.
The distinction is not relevant: "eponym" just means "giving one's name".
Etymology is no indication of meaning.
In this case, it is, as confirmed by the following definition
"A person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named."
Which of the above -- discovery, invention, or place -- is a book? Are books
so insignificant as to be lumped into "etc."?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
For instance, Christopher Columbus is the eponym of Columbus Circle but
The word is not used that way.
Yet my example is spot-on with the above definition, unless you dissociate a
person from their name (which I hope not).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Again, maybe you're transferring a French usage into English.
Again, no, see all English definitions of the word.
Dictionaries do not, typically, lay out the usages of words.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
the latter" isn't a thing introduced by or taking on the characteristics
of a character in it" either.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Consider *The Greatest Story Ever Told*. Is that movie title an eponym for
Jesus, or for the New Testament? Of course not. It's a description.
A better example is *The Man Who Would Be King* (if I knew who it was about).
Eponym? or description?
Certainly not an eponym, as the name must appear verbatim, not allusively,
in the title to be one.
Find examples in normal English usage of "King Lear" being called the eponym
of *King Lear*. Or maybe your claim is that *King Lear* is the eponym of King
Lear. As I noted long ago in the thread, Lear is the eponymous hero of the
play. The noun does not come into it.
That's a fallacy and you could also hold e.g. that Goneril's father is the
eponym of the play: he would somehow, but only because such title actually
refers to "King Lear".
You evidently can't find examples to bolster your belief about the word.
Here are two quotations to that effect, among many others
You really have a problem with reading English. The following is _not_ a quotation
showing the usage of the word, but a dictionary definition.
It was a double _quotation_ from a Web page that is not part of a
dictionary, so that, paradoxically, you seem to have problems with
reading English. Besides, I for one took the trouble to give you many references proving my point, but I'm still waiting for evidence in support of your hazy theory that since "A novel isn't a thing introduced by or taking on
the characteristics of a character in it. It's a thing _about_ a character in it", "eponym" can't apply to a novel. Try as I might, I haven't been able to
find anything to that effect in the wild. As you were doubly wrong on
"antonomasia", understandbly, I won't take your word for gospel truth.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And examples are given of the use of "eponymous," not of "eponym."
No, the very word "eponym" is mentioned twice in that sense -- I emphasized
it ("*"), but to no avail, apparently.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
- "Definition of Eponym
An eponym is a person, place, or thing from which something takes its name.
Examples of eponyms are far-ranging, *from book titles* to time-periods to
medications."
...
- "There are also countless books named after the title character, which is
*another example of eponym*. Here are some famous examples of eponymous book
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J. K. Rowling (and the rest
of the Harry Potter series)
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton"
etc.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I just did a NYT crossword with "Eponym of a day of the week" (6). Can you
discover the answer?
No, because all seven days have (well-known) eponyms.
Really? What's the eponym of "dimanche"?
In English, only one of them is six letters long.
Helios -- too easy.

Quinn C
2017-05-21 12:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
For instance, Christopher Columbus is the eponym of Columbus Circle but
The word is not used that way.
| But, as any occasional visitor to the city can tell you,
| Shakespeare and Walter Scott are in Central Park, Bolívar and
| José Martí just outside it, and of course Columbus sits atop
| his eponymous circle’s column.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/scars-lorelei-8720.html
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Yet my example is spot-on with the above definition, unless you dissociate a
person from their name (which I hope not).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Again, maybe you're transferring a French usage into English.
Again, no, see all English definitions of the word.
Dictionaries do not, typically, lay out the usages of words.
You're denying the developments in lexicography of the past few
decades just to win an argument. Ouch.
--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?
CDB
2017-05-17 20:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK (once
President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan,
Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer",
"ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very
common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French
"coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
It is used that way, though, often by people who aren't clear on the
meaning of "wherefore". I agree that the promiscuity would have been
almost all in his teeny-bopper head (except maybe for a servant or two).

We see Romeo's former self in Scene 1, a fashionable disconsolate lover
chasing after fair Rosalind; it seems probable that she is not the first
disdainful beauty he has chas'd.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-17 21:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK (once
President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan,
Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer",
"ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very
common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French
"coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
It is used that way, though, often by people who aren't clear on the
meaning of "wherefore". I agree that the promiscuity would have been
almost all in his teeny-bopper head (except maybe for a servant or two).
We see Romeo's former self in Scene 1, a fashionable disconsolate lover
chasing after fair Rosalind; it seems probable that she is not the first
disdainful beauty he has chas'd.
She, however, was chaste.

If never successfully, that doesn't put him in bebe's category of "promiscuous
men" alongside Don Juan ("mille tre!"), Casanova, and Lothario.
CDB
2017-05-17 23:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the word
"strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK (once
President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan,
Casanova and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer",
"ladies' man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very
common) "skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French
"coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
It is used that way, though, often by people who aren't clear on the
meaning of "wherefore". I agree that the promiscuity would have been
almost all in his teeny-bopper head (except maybe for a servant or two).
We see Romeo's former self in Scene 1, a fashionable disconsolate lover
chasing after fair Rosalind; it seems probable that she is not the first
disdainful beauty he has chas'd.
She, however, was chaste.
If never successfully, that doesn't put him in bebe's category of "promiscuous
men" alongside Don Juan ("mille tre!"), Casanova, and Lothario.
And that's just in Espagna*. My posting was largely in agreement with
what you had said.

*No need.
Paul Wolff
2017-05-17 22:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova
and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies'
man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common)
"skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes. An eponym is a person. Antonomasia is a substitution.
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-18 03:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova
and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies'
man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common)
"skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes. An eponym is a person. Antonomasia is a substitution.
What are "Don Juan" and "Casanova" and "Lothario" substitutes for?
Paul Wolff
2017-05-18 09:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova
and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies'
man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common)
"skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes. An eponym is a person. Antonomasia is a substitution.
What are "Don Juan" and "Casanova" and "Lothario" substitutes for?
In what sentence?
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-18 11:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
Everybody knows what a "strumpet" is. Do we need the
word "strump" to describe promiscuous men?
Wkitionary does not give "strumpet" a plausible
etymology.
I will limit my suggested list of "strumps" to JFK
(once President of the USA).
Literature has begotten many iconic characters whose names became
"antonomasias" for promiscuous men, offhand: Romeo, Don Juan, Casanova
and Lothario. Also springing to mind are e.g. "seducer", "ladies'
man", "lecher" (?) and maybe (not sure whether it's very common)
"skirt chaser", which sounds like a calque of French "coureur de jupons".
Um, have you ever read or seen *Romeo and Juliet*?
Does "antonomasia" differ from "eponym"?
Yes. An eponym is a person. Antonomasia is a substitution.
What are "Don Juan" and "Casanova" and "Lothario" substitutes for?
In what sentence?
No idea. See what bebe wrote.

He seems to be using a word naming an action to name things (people) instead.
Loading...