Talk:Antonomasia

Untitled

I´ve added the interesting example of the antonomastic use of "Prohibition" for "Prohibition of the Drug Alcohol in the United States between 1920 and 1933". Drcaldev 09:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition by synecdoche, not antonomasia

I concur with Ben Bell who says the American localism of calling the "Prohibition of Alcoholic Drugs in the United States from 1919 to 1933", just "The Prohibition", has the rethoric figure of whole for part synecdoche, and not antonomasia. Drcaldev 08:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames that are descriptive, not antonomasic

For a sentence to be antonomasic, there must exist several elements of its kind. For example, of the many commentators there are, Averroes is antonomasically "The Commentator". However, probably there is only one "Iron Chancellor" or one "Steel Butterfly".

• "The little corporal" for Napoleon I. Could be
• "Macedonia's madman" for Alexander the Great. Could be
• "The author of Paradise Lost" for John Milton. There is only one author of Paradise Lost
• "The Iron Duke" for the Duke of Wellington. Probably not
• "The Iron Chancellor" for Otto von Bismark Probably not
• "The Barcodes" for Newcastle United. Clearly just a nickname
• "Old Blue Eyes" for Frank Sinatra. Clearly just a nickname
• "The King of Pop" for Michael Jackson. Probably just a nickname
• "The Boss" for Bruce Springsteen. Probably just a nickname
• "The Iron Lady" for Margaret Thatcher. Just a nickname
• "The Steel Butterfly" for Imelda Marcos. Just a nickname
• "A young preacher from Georgia" for Martin Luther King To be antonomasic it should be "The young preacher from Georgia"
• "The Man of Steel" or the "Man of Tomorrow" for Superman Just nicknames
• "The Dark Knight" or "The Caped Crusader" for Batman (also referred as "The Dynamic Duo" when paired with fictional sidekick , Robin) Just nicknames

(missing paren (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Archetypical name

I'm wondering if the example given in "Archetypical name" is a correct one. Re-reading the source, it appears that an archetypical name is a proper name attached to a well-known person, and thus carrying ideas/traits. Ex: if a fictional character is named Chad, we're inclined to think about a certain archetype.

In this light, Renard is a antonomasia and not an archetypical name, since it's used as a common name in French.

What do you think? Ruunes (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

How is this different from sobriquet, or nicknames? Also — how does it relate to archetypal names?

This page describes antonomasia as a rhetorical device wherein a descriptive title is sometimes, or even most times, used in place of an actual name to refer to a person or place — which is exactly how the noun sobriquet is described on its page. There is overlap in the lists of examples on both pages, with no description or clear pattern that would allow readers to discern what makes a title "antonomasia", "sobriquet", or both. Is a "sobriquet" the word for an enshrined instance of antonomasia? Or are they distinct? The poor sourcing and lacking text on both pages makes it difficult to determine the correct answer. It doesn't help that "sobriquet" is already a synonym of nickname, which has its own (better) page with more examples that also overlap with those listed here. It seems like a good idea to redirect both this page and "sobriquet" to "nickname", or redirect this page to metonymy.

Further, how is "antonomasia" actually related to archetypal names? The first sentence of this article states "antonomasia is a kind of metonymy ... or conversely the use of a proper name as an archetypal name ...". The second section of the "archetypal names" page says it "is a form of antonomasia." Yet, the section "Archetypal names" on this page starts: "The opposite of antonomasia is an archetypal name." So, is an archetypal name the opposite of antonomasia? Or does the scope of antonomasia include both "sobriquets"/metonymy and archetypal names? To me, the former makes the both sense... but it's impossible to determine consensus given to strictly conflicting definitions which are unsourced in every instance where they appear.

What a mess! Experts of rhetoric — Aristotles of Wikipedia — please enlighten me! Or someone more bold than me just put all of these dictionary entry pages out of their misery and merge them with proper articles. -Burnst Jamp (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)