New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Julia
in reply to a message by Billina
It's beautiful, like woah very - and since it's so classic it's also sort of boring and so its beauty is less noticeable.
Boringness to me is how non-faddish a name seems, how typical, how international.
It's not one of the very most boring classic names, lika Anna, Elizabeth, the John-based names, Margaret, Mary, Katherine.
It's medium-boring, like Rose, Laura, Caroline / Charlotte, Sophia, Victoria, Susanna, Patricia, Alexandra, Diana, Madeline, Martha, Sarah, Eve.
It's more boring than some classic names like - Augusta, Bridget, Sylvia, Virginia, Flavia, Agatha, Barbara, Cynthia, Eugenia, Camilla, Wilhelmina, Priscilla, Dorothy, Ruth, Irene. But IMO it's also more beautiful than those.
- mirfak
Boringness to me is how non-faddish a name seems, how typical, how international.
It's not one of the very most boring classic names, lika Anna, Elizabeth, the John-based names, Margaret, Mary, Katherine.
It's medium-boring, like Rose, Laura, Caroline / Charlotte, Sophia, Victoria, Susanna, Patricia, Alexandra, Diana, Madeline, Martha, Sarah, Eve.
It's more boring than some classic names like - Augusta, Bridget, Sylvia, Virginia, Flavia, Agatha, Barbara, Cynthia, Eugenia, Camilla, Wilhelmina, Priscilla, Dorothy, Ruth, Irene. But IMO it's also more beautiful than those.
- mirfak
This message was edited 5/21/2015, 11:42 AM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
How are Katherine and Elizabeth boring?
1
How are they not?
Like I said, the most "boring" names are the most classic, that become typical.
We see a lot of Katherine and Elizabeth, so they become "boring." They're not striking because they're so common. But that kind of popularity generally doesn't happen to names people don't find beautiful...
Like I said, the most "boring" names are the most classic, that become typical.
We see a lot of Katherine and Elizabeth, so they become "boring." They're not striking because they're so common. But that kind of popularity generally doesn't happen to names people don't find beautiful...
This message was edited 5/22/2015, 7:20 PM
1
I see your point, but I still think that Classic names will fair better than modern names, and they won't sound dated in ten or twenty years. I remember several classmates with the names Brittany, Ashley, and Megan, and those names sound dated to me today. To me, only the classic names, such as the ones you mentioned in your list, shall stand the test of time.
1
Funny you should mention the test of time, because Katherine actually is sounding a little dated to me! There were so many people named Cathy and Kathy, Kathryn and Kate and Katie and Kitty among people about 25 and up, and I haven't seen any young Katherines in a long time. The reason, I figure, is that people see it as overused and boring.
Check out these curves
http://www.behindthename.com/top/name/katherine,elizabeth,julia,sophia
Katherine and Elizabeth follow the same trend as Julia, which is dated according to most people - only they have fallen relatively farther, as they were even more common for longer.
Of course it'll stand the test of time, because of famous bearers and because it's just a beautiful name. So will Sophia. And who's to say, maybe when I'm an old lady Katherine and Mary and Elizabeth and Anna will seem unusual and fresh again, and Sophia will seem like one of the most boring names. But right now, Katherine's boring. Taken in isolation from everything else, it's not boring, but my image of it is sort of like the Mona Lisa, or Ode to Joy ... something well-known and appreciated for good reason, but which is so ubiquitous that it has become like a generic symbol for the category (paintings, music, names for women). Those things will stand the test of time, sure, but that doesn't mean they stay interesting decade after decade.
Check out these curves
http://www.behindthename.com/top/name/katherine,elizabeth,julia,sophia
Katherine and Elizabeth follow the same trend as Julia, which is dated according to most people - only they have fallen relatively farther, as they were even more common for longer.
Of course it'll stand the test of time, because of famous bearers and because it's just a beautiful name. So will Sophia. And who's to say, maybe when I'm an old lady Katherine and Mary and Elizabeth and Anna will seem unusual and fresh again, and Sophia will seem like one of the most boring names. But right now, Katherine's boring. Taken in isolation from everything else, it's not boring, but my image of it is sort of like the Mona Lisa, or Ode to Joy ... something well-known and appreciated for good reason, but which is so ubiquitous that it has become like a generic symbol for the category (paintings, music, names for women). Those things will stand the test of time, sure, but that doesn't mean they stay interesting decade after decade.
This message was edited 5/23/2015, 5:27 PM
1
Loads of boring stuff stands the test of time. That's why it's boring.
1
I don't think it's a question of standing the test of time. When I hear names like Elizabeth and Katherine, I also think "boring", but that doesn't mean they aren't classics, and it doesn't mean I don't like them. They're just ubiquitous; if I hear a name like Ashley or Megan, I can picture something more specific, like a woman of a certain age, because they are dated. Elizabeth and Katherine are blank slates because they've been around so long and have been used so much. I think that's what Mirfak was talking about, though I can't speak for her, of course.
This message was edited 5/23/2015, 3:20 PM
1
We'll have to agree to disagree about this issue. I respect each of your opnions, but I will say that, in my opinion, a "blank slate" would be prferred over a dated, trendy name.
1
This exactly.
1