okay, without looking it up...

[clauclauclaudia]

Does this usage of eponymous seem okay to you or not? Why?

[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.

I'm screening comments for a bit to get independent answers, but I'll unscreen them soonish. [Edit: slow unscreening now complete.]

Comments

[neon-epiphany.livejournal.com]

What, was the novella called "Anton Chekhov"? Because if not, it rubs me as wrong, wrong, WRONG.

exactly

[clauclauclaudia]

I had thought eponymous meant strictly "self-titled", like "Melissa Etheridge", the album. It's slightly broader than that, but it does mean something named after a particular person. I believe The Duel not to be a person. ;-)

[emmacrew.livejournal.com]

This.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

Doesn't eponymous mean "named after the author or creator?"

not quite...

[clauclauclaudia]

Though that's certainly common usage these days. But it does mean named after a person.

[heatherbelles.livejournal.com]

This is probably going to result in me embarrassing myself, but isn't 'eponymous' mean something along the name of 'bearing the same name'?

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!

[clauclauclaudia]

I think I would go with "titular" in the Crowe sentence. Eponymous means named for a specific person, and I'm not sure Gladiator qualifies. It certainly comes miles closer than The Duel, though.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

I would give it at best a ? but probably a *. Eponymous things, I think, are named after a person or group. But ordinary usage is sloppy, and here it is clear that the 1891 novella is called "The Duel" rather than "Chekhov."

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

It does not. "Eponymous" is used to describe a work named for the author, e.g. "Boston's eponymous first album led off with the mega-hit 'More Than a Feeling,'" or "Jane Schmoe's eponymous memoir details the ins and outs of her more than three decades as a public-interest advocate on Capital Hill."

pretty close

[clauclauclaudia]

As I am definitionally in pedantic mode with this post, I'll give you a "correct but incomplete". ;-) See my earlier replies.

Re: pretty close

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I am now edified. :-)

doesn't sit right with me

[totient]

Unless the novella was called "Chekhov", this reads as wrong to me. "Eponymous ... novella" expands to "... novella of the same name", but with an implied reference to "his", not to some noun phrase in an entirely different clause.

off the top of my head

[rmd.livejournal.com]

if and only if "THE DUEL" refers to an actual duel, not the title of a book. so, for instance, "according to the eponymous novella, THE DUEL was called off on account of rain," maybe. but "according to the eponymous novella, THE DUEL is a rousing tale of adventure and duelling" is right out.

Re: off the top of my head

[clauclauclaudia]

Not quite. Your example sentence is equally bad to my ears. An eponym is always a person (or, well, entity, in the case of band names).

[jheaton.livejournal.com]

Unles the novella it's based on was called "Chekhov," then no, it doesn't seem right. Something like, "Based on Chekhov's 1891 novella of the same name, THE DUEL ..." would be more correct.

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

It doesn't seem right to me. I usually think of that as relating to the personal name of the creator/discoverer, not of a work derived from another work of the same name. As written, this would mean the novella is named "Chekhov", which I don't think is what the writer of the sentence menas to say.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Seems odd to me. An eponymous Chekhov novella would have to be named "Chekhov" as I understand the word.

[lowellboyslash.livejournal.com]

I vote no, because of the use of "his": that makes me think that the novella is named Chekov, but then it appears the sentence wants me to understand that the novella is also named The Duel.

[spinrabbit.livejournal.com]

Not looked up [yet] but no, not ok -- should be talking about an entity with the same name within the film or within the novel.

[dot_fennel]

That seems totally wrong to me.

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.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Do you mean that the novella is called "Anton Chekhov"? If so, then it's fine. If not, then no.

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

I don't think it makes sense, at least not in my mind. Unless the novella had a different title from the film.

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't at all say it was a proper usage of "eponymous."

(OK, *that's* a clunky sentence. What I mean to say is that it is an incorrect usage.)

[moominmolly.livejournal.com]

What?! I did not look it up and that sentence is officially dumb.

Yay, it's official!

[clauclauclaudia]

I'm so glad.

[i-leonardo.livejournal.com]

there isn't enough context to determine if the usage is appropriate: someone is talking about THE DUEL which is based on someone else's eponymous (same name) novella. THE DUEL is described as "Chekhovian", but not necessarily as being *by* Chekhov. the worst and best that can be said about the fragment is that it's confusing.

[clauclauclaudia]

Fair enough! I thought I'd preserved enough context, but I see what you mean.

[sarcasma.livejournal.com]

Enggggggg.
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.

[clauclauclaudia]

*tsk-tsk*

[sarcasma.livejournal.com]

LOL. :)

As soon as I read it I had an editing flashback. I know I have a lot of usage ticks, so I look things up CONSTANTLY. Fortunately, I'm aware of most of them, or at least, some part of my brain that is highly instinctive but also deeply versed in proper usage shouts WAIT NO LOOK OUT DANGER and I go get the books.

I admit to being surprised at how many of your readers immediately thought "What no WRONG" but I posit that your readers != average cross-section of random readers. So, the lesson is also "know your audience." :D

[clauclauclaudia]

Yay the brain warning. I have a similar "wait no" when touch-typing so that the errors that get through are largely thinkos instead of typos. :) That comes very close to muscle memory, actually.

And yes, I *heart* my flist.

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

No. If it was eponymous, it would be called "Chekhov."

[ophblekuwufu.livejournal.com]

I suppose it's probably all right. It does seem very weird, though-- usually eponymous is used to refer to people, rather than topics. And that seems like a more useful word to have, too-- I mean, with the broader definition I could make an argument for the eponymous Wheel of Time (though I'd deserve to be smacked for it).

[clauclauclaudia]

You seem to be the most usage-forgiving of my friends list, so far. :)

[metagnat.livejournal.com]

That usage doesn't feel right to me at all.

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

No. Unless the name of the novella was actually something like Anton Chekhov: International Man of Mystery and the subsequent adaptation retitled as shown. But assuming what they mean here is "his 1981 novella of the same title," that is NOT what eponymous means.

*hearts REM's use of this term, as an aside*

[clauclauclaudia]

I *heart* it too. :)

[wotw]

Without any googling, this seems entirely wrong (unless "The Duel" is
somebody's name).

[frotz.livejournal.com]

No.

[clauclauclaudia]

Indeed.