I thought of you just now when I read this in the Globe and Mail (a major newspaper that ought to get this sort of thing right): George Corbo, owner of the George C. boutique, where he worked with Ms. Buchowski – the new boutique’s co-owner – went through a naming ordeal of his own. An ownership dispute with the co-owner of his previous boutique, the eponymously-named “Corbo,” left him on the outside. He says he ultimately spent $60,000 fighting for – and ultimately losing – the right to his own name, which is why his new boutique uses only his last initial.
Eponymously-named?!? (Not to mention that every sentence in that paragraph seems to have been tortured into shape by inquisitors.)
no subject
George Corbo, owner of the George C. boutique, where he worked with Ms. Buchowski – the new boutique’s co-owner – went through a naming ordeal of his own. An ownership dispute with the co-owner of his previous boutique, the eponymously-named “Corbo,” left him on the outside. He says he ultimately spent $60,000 fighting for – and ultimately losing – the right to his own name, which is why his new boutique uses only his last initial.
Eponymously-named?!? (Not to mention that every sentence in that paragraph seems to have been tortured into shape by inquisitors.)