Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:18:34 -0800
From: Michael Andre-Driussi 
Subject: Re: (urth) eponyms as saints

Jerry Friedman wrote:
>You mean there's a Saint Baldanders and a Saint Foila?

Now you're just wise-cracking, or you are the new guard to come on duty in
interrogating.  I've been through that thread simply too many times.
Baldanders is a bad guy, as signified by his fiction-derived name.

>But for Pete's sake and heavens to Betsy, if all the people of the
>Commonwealth are named after Catholic saints, isn't it obvious who
>the eponyms are?

No, forgive me, it is not.  I have never heard of saints categorized as
eponyms for giving their names to countless individuals--as opposed to
giving their name "to a tribe, nation, process, product, etc."  (Name for a
city, which you gave before, seemed close to tribe/nation, athough greatly
diluted.)  If it is clear to you then that is enough.

>St. Agia of the Knife?  Sorry, wrong series.

=Saint Austregildis=, du-uh!

>But we don't put up statues of Lynch, Boycott, or E. Clerihew Bentley.

Hugos, Edgars, Nebulas, and Oscars are halfway there.  Maybe "Sons of
Liberty" and "Knights of Columbus" and stuff like that.  Elks Lodge.
Freemasonry.  Still, I would agree that we don't put up statues of the
eponyms!  It seems like a practice from the ancient world.

=mantis=



--