Talk:namesake

RFV
I've checked three paper dictionaries and can't find evidence for this entry being correct. If Freddie is the grandson of Frederick, then, according to this entry 1) Freddie is the namesake of Frederick and 2) Frederick is the namesake of Freddie. Can someone shed some light on this for me? Thanks. Haus 12:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think (2) clearly sees widespread use. (1) is attestable also, though:, , , etc. (Of course, those could be instances of the other ("A person, place or thing having the same name as another") sense. I don't know an easy way to rule out that possibility on a search.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All persons with the same name {full name, given name, surname, nickname) are in an equivalence class with respect to the shared name. One of the uni-directional variations undoubtedly had preference when the supposed source phrase "for the name's sake" was intelligible. MWOnline has one sense with an especially including the RfDed sense. BTW, see OneLook for convenient access to many online dictionaries and glossaries, including AHD, RHU, MWOnline, Encarta, and Online Etymology Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations. I'm now convinced the entry is accurate. Although I reserve the right to raise an eyebrow if someone were to say that Kim Kardashian is Kim Jong Il's namesake. Haus 07:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim Kardashian is not the namesake of Kim Jong-Il. The North Korean leader's name is actually, 김정일 (according to Wikipedia), with Kim Jong-Il being the Romanisation (and in any case "Kim" is the family name). Similarly Michael Schumacher and Michael Portillo are not namesakes, as the German name is not the same as the English name, even though they have the same spelling and similar etymology. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think most folks would buy these distinctions, which only linguistic theorists and certain philosophers could love. I wonder whether KimK and Kim Jong-Il are related. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying then that Michael Douglas and Douglas Hurd are namesakes? I certainly wouldn't regard them as such. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hypothesize that most folks would actually view the namesake relationship within a naming convention as applying only among names of a given class (given names, first name, surname, patronymic, etc), though some may use the term more broadly. I think most lexicographers attempt to word definitions so as to finesse the need for such precise delineation of sub- and sub-subsenses. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you have really confused me! You're saying appear to be saying that:
 * Michael Douglas and Douglas Hurd are not namesakes as they share neither a given name nor a surname
 * I agree they are not namesakse
 * That Kim Kardashian in Kim Jong-Il are namesakes, presumably as they share a first name(?)
 * I disagree - they share neither given name nor a surname - the "Kim" in the Korean's name is a romanisation of his family name "김"
 * That Michael Schumacher and Michael Portillo are namesakes because they share a first name
 * I disagree - the names are cognates (they are both descended from Hebrew) and coincidentally have the same spelling, but they are not the same name.
 * As I read what you've written to be self-contradictory, what do you actually mean? Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant to be jesting about over-extending the concept across naming systems, just as I would be loathe to call "Red Bull" (beverage) and "Sitting Bull" namesakes. Sorry for not making that clear. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been rather bold and removed the "person having the same name as another" sense, because there were no citations of it in the entry or on the citations page. - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2020
Rfv-sense "A person with the same name as another." --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, . --Lambiam 13:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The first two are examples of sense 1, "one who is named after another". I can't view the third. --Lvovmauro (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , These are not "one who is named after another". I'd say that in everyday use, this is probably the most common meaning of "namesake" nowadays. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether sessions of the European Parliament are durably archived anywhere, but here someone calls the namesake of, though the latter was pretty obviously not deliberately named after the former. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * . --Lambiam 15:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)