New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Hugh is more 'user friendly' to me
in reply to a message by Anneza
Hugh and Hugo are more or less interchangeable to me as far as aesthetics and all are concerned. They may as well be the same name because my feelings on them are just about identical.
But I still think there's something more "usable" about Hugh. Maybe it's because of Hugh Grant (God help me, I love Hugh Grant) or something like that but it seems more... well, usable. Hugh reminds me of a list of names that I have mentally designated "not quite" classics like Graham, Ross, Reid, Leo, Colin, and so on. Solid names with a long history of use but just not in the same place for me as William, Michael, etc.
I don't know what it is that makes Hugo less friendly in practical application. It might be that something about Latinized forms being almost... archaic? Well, not as extreme as that but still "old" sounding. And of course even then not in all cases. But at least with Hugh vs. Hugo, I do get an older and maybe mustier feel from Hugo. IT does not have the more "updated" sound to me.
But I still think there's something more "usable" about Hugh. Maybe it's because of Hugh Grant (God help me, I love Hugh Grant) or something like that but it seems more... well, usable. Hugh reminds me of a list of names that I have mentally designated "not quite" classics like Graham, Ross, Reid, Leo, Colin, and so on. Solid names with a long history of use but just not in the same place for me as William, Michael, etc.
I don't know what it is that makes Hugo less friendly in practical application. It might be that something about Latinized forms being almost... archaic? Well, not as extreme as that but still "old" sounding. And of course even then not in all cases. But at least with Hugh vs. Hugo, I do get an older and maybe mustier feel from Hugo. IT does not have the more "updated" sound to me.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1