What do you think of...
Jan. 17th, 2009 03:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
clarentineEponymic?
Does that say to you, reader, that the person whose name contains an eponymic is related, in some fashion other than blood, to the person whose name he bears?
To follow my earlier example: Abel Johnsha, where John stands in some guardian relationship to Abel other than parentage--does that work for you? If a character was to call infant Abel "Abel Paulson" and was corrected that the child was "Abel Johnsha," would you blink over the character noting the use of the eponymic as stating that John has taken guardianship or responsibility for the infant Abel?
(I still think it unlikely I'm the first person to need to label this relationship, and probably there's some anthro or linguistics major out there laughing at me. If you're laughing, tell me what the right word is!)
Does that say to you, reader, that the person whose name contains an eponymic is related, in some fashion other than blood, to the person whose name he bears?
To follow my earlier example: Abel Johnsha, where John stands in some guardian relationship to Abel other than parentage--does that work for you? If a character was to call infant Abel "Abel Paulson" and was corrected that the child was "Abel Johnsha," would you blink over the character noting the use of the eponymic as stating that John has taken guardianship or responsibility for the infant Abel?
(I still think it unlikely I'm the first person to need to label this relationship, and probably there's some anthro or linguistics major out there laughing at me. If you're laughing, tell me what the right word is!)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-17 10:07 pm (UTC)I think that you can stick on any thing you want to a name, but you're going to have a lot of readers wondering WTF? You're going to need to do a lot of explanation so that at least some of them get what you mean and are trying to do.
I also think you're making life too difficult for yourself. Make up some title or word, in English, that explains the relationship at a glance. Abel, heartkin of John, makes it clear that John has assumed responsibility for Abel. Abel, bloodkin of Paul, makes it clear that Paul is his natural father.
You can make up or use any system you choose, but I agree with the other commenter. Even in Sweden and other European nations where the patronymic naming system has been in place for centuries and centuries, it is falling out of use. The majority of people who don't even know the system exists won't get it. To them a surname is just a surname.
Good luck with this. *g*
no subject
Date: 2009-01-17 10:15 pm (UTC)That's one thing I'm worried about - that I've got the meaning exactly backward. That, even if I get all the nuances right and the exposition just perfect and the word fits comfortably in the sentence, someone who knows what the hell it really means is going to see that and be booted out into the asteroid belt. *g*
grrrraugh!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-17 10:26 pm (UTC)Ayup. I think that's a better way to put what I was trying to say: that I see "Paulson" as a distinct, en toto surname, and not as "paul's son". So it's doubly hard for me to see "Johnsha" as "John's sha," whatever 'sha' is. Maybe if 'sha' at least had some more English-sensical version? Like Johnfoster, perhaps?
Hrm, one idea, riffing off 'kin' (family) -- 'kith' is the equivalent for 'friend'... so instead of patronymic gender-based designations (-son, -dottir), perhaps Paulkin vs Johnkith? Just musing!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-17 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-17 10:30 pm (UTC)Check that out, I'm all telepathetic 'n stuff!