View Message

Wow

I think it you're gonna call your son John....name him John. And I like Luke better than Lucas. I'm not big on nicknames..,

As others have said already, the names you mention are not nicknames. John is a name in it's own right that as you probably know is, or was, very common and it's got nothing to do with Jonathan. Luke is a variant of Lucas. That some Jonathan 's might go by Jon or Lucas 's by Luke has nothing to do with it.

---

However, I dislike nicknames, especially those that end in -y or -ie such as Allie, Annie, Jamie being used as full names, I think it looks silly and childish on an adult.

In some cases I prefer nicknames to the full names. I hate William and Beatrice, but I like Bill and Bea. Some long names sound also too elderly for my taste - I prefer Ted or Theo over Theodore, because Theodore seems too royal and formal to me.
I dislike quite nicknamish names like Bobby, Johnny, Sammy, Jackie, Stevie and Eddie, though Bob or Ed would be quite ok for me.

This message was edited 12/21/2007, 1:34 PM

As a name nerd I think it's nice to have a longer version, so the child has more choice.

---

However, I think some nicknames have enough substance to stand on their own. I know far more Nick's (just Nick) than Nicholas'. Katherine isn't even in the Top 100 (last time I checked) where I live, while Katie and Kate thrives. I think it depends on where you are, but here in the UK it is generally seen as fine to have a nn as a full name.

---

I think it depends on the nn. If it was really little and immature, say Sissy, I wouldn't really like that as a full name. Tess and Nell on the other hand, sound grown up and easy to live with.

---

And I agree with the others, John and Luke are full names. There is no doubt a Lucas could go by Luke, or a Jonathan could go by John (most likely Jon though) but they do stand on their own and have for a very long time

Uh, those aren't nicknames . . .

---

Click the links. Luke is a full name. John is a full name. Jonathan is a related but quite separate name, and Lucas and Luke are both variations of the same original name.

---

"What do you think?"

---

I think you should check your facts before posting.

I find it kinda confusing that you claim you dislike these so called nn's even though you include jake luke brad chris finn ginny gabe and mark on your PNL...and I agree with Caitlin as well.

I do not mind John because John has been a name for popular name for ages. Jonathan is a whole different name and can have the nickname Jon. John until recently was way more popular, now it is only a few more popular. The ones you listed are fine. As I said a few days ago, in the 1880s there were tons of common real nicknames as full names like Bessie which was ranked 13. The had names like Mattie, Katie, Joe, Will, Sam, Lizzy, and tons more in the top 100.

---

Personally, with names that sound real nicknamey like Katie, I usually like the orginial full name Katherine better. I do not mind when people do that though. It just gives the child more options if they have the longer version.

John and Luke are NOT nicknames. John is completely unrelated to Jonathan, and Lucas is the Latin form of Luke.

John and Luke are not just nicknames for Jonathan and Lucas. They are independent names with their own roots and histories.

---

I usually prefer a more formal version of a name, such as Katharine instead of Kitty. Sometimes, though, I prefer the nickname--Daisy or Margot instead of Margaret, for example. I guess I judge each nn on a case by case basis.

---

FWIW, I would definitely prefer Jonathan and Lucas over nicknames like Jo and Lucky.

---

John is a full name. It's the English form of Johann. If anything, it's a nn for Johannes, not Jonathan. Luke also, is the English form of Lukas. Lucas is the Latin form. John and Luke have very very long usages as full names in English.

---

However, I do not like most nicknames as full names. Bobbie and Johnny and Charlie are without a doubt nicknames and not full names.