okay, without looking it up...
Sep. 27th, 2010 03:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Does this usage of eponymous seem okay to you or not? Why?
All right. Look it up if you want to, but let me know if you do.
I'm screening comments for a bit to get independent answers, but I'll unscreen them soonish. [Edit: slow unscreening now complete.]
[blah blah Chekhov on film] "Based on his eponymous 1891 novella, THE DUEL gives life to a classic Chekhovian tale...."
All right. Look it up if you want to, but let me know if you do.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:13 pm (UTC)exactly
Date: 2010-09-27 08:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:17 pm (UTC)not quite...
Date: 2010-09-27 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:17 pm (UTC)Like 'the film JFK focuses not on its eponymous President, but on the conspiracy theories surrounding the shooting' Or 'Russell Crowe plays the eponymous hero in Robin Hood/Gladiator'.
So, no the sentence wouldn't make sense - the film would have to be called Chekov, wouldn't it, for it to make sense?
I was tempted to look it up and check but haven't. I might once I've submitted this though!
almost!
Date: 2010-09-27 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:22 pm (UTC)pretty close
Date: 2010-09-27 09:02 pm (UTC)Re: pretty close
From:doesn't sit right with me
Date: 2010-09-27 07:23 pm (UTC)off the top of my head
Date: 2010-09-27 07:26 pm (UTC)Re: off the top of my head
Date: 2010-09-27 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:37 pm (UTC)Oh, huh. Saying "the eponymous" instead of "his eponymous" would make it a little better. Using it only as a backward reference (rather than, here, putting it before the title) would make it a lot better. But I still don't like the sentence you quoted at all.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:46 pm (UTC)(OK, *that's* a clunky sentence. What I mean to say is that it is an incorrect usage.)
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 07:47 pm (UTC)Yay, it's official!
Date: 2010-09-27 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 09:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 08:04 pm (UTC)1. I'd probably use it that way.
2. Technically, Chekhov's eponymous novella would have to be named Chekhov. But that strict definition isn't really in practice. Still, the occasional reader might go "wait, what?" which is never what you want.
3. See #1.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 09:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 08:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 09:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 08:46 pm (UTC)*hearts REM's use of this term, as an aside*
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 08:46 pm (UTC)somebody's name).
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 09:12 pm (UTC)