I'm seeing this suffix everywhere lately. Of course, there are a number of -esques that are commonly used (i.e. Kafkaesque), but is there some sort of rule for determining who (or what) gets assigned which suffix? For instance, was Orwellian chosen simply because someone decided it sounded better than "Orwellesque"? What about "Kafkanian"? It all seems very willy-nilly.
Learn English – What are the limits of using the suffix “-esque”
adjectivesmorphological-domainssuffixesword-choice
Related Solutions
It does seem odd to have the numeric suffix without the surname.
One way around the problem is to move the surname: "Edward H Jones II and his wife Clarabel", which is a fairly standard headstone inscription.
Or: repeat the surname, which is also common.
I would never deny someone the right to assign their own adjective form out of a proper noun that they own, or are assigned. I would argue that it comes from what appears or sounds best when spoken/read, but ultimately it would be like deciding upon a nickname or slang term. It is a proper noun after all, so it won't be listed in a dictionary text until it passes a certain popularity/consensus level.
Best Answer
From what I could infer based on the Wikitionary entries, -esque is more likely to be appended to proper nouns than -ian.
Also there appear to be nuances in meaning though they seem to have been dulled by conflicting contemporary usage. -ian can be used to mean "related to" in addition to "like", e.g. Machiavellian could relate to the principles of government as expounded by Machiavelli or something befitting Machiavelli .
-esque is generally used only in the sense of being like something or befitting something, e.g. "Machiavellesque" could describe something befitting Machiavelli, not necessarily related to his principles (although I am inclined to leave this point open for discussion).
Based on these arguments, I conclude that -ian can be used in a much broader context than -esque even when both are appended to proper nouns.