New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] American "classic" girl names revisited
Haven posted a link to this post a few messages down, and I remembered how much I liked the idea of CKE's way of defining classic: http://www.behindthename.com/bb/arcview.php?id=507534&board=baby
I've found some more "Near Misses"--I couldn't find any more "Classics"--and some of them are a bit surprising. I thought you all might be interested. :) They're listed by name, lowest place on SSA list, and year it placed there:
Christine 398 (2005)
Esther 330 (2000)
Helen 364 (2004)
Nancy 318 (2005)
Priscilla 382 (1892)
Rose 393 (1997)
Ruth 353 (2003)
The other difficult bit is that quite a few names hold up as Near Misses if you go with BtN's records (which show by decade, for the most part), but then there'll be a year or two in which they went below 400! Arrgh. ;) I kind of think it should be opened up to any name that's never been below the 500 mark--otherwise, neither Anne nor Jane count as American classics!
But overall, it's kind of a fun treasure hunt.
Array
O come, all ye Grateful
Deadheads to the concert.
O come, Grateful Deadheads,
And camp in the street.
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.
I've found some more "Near Misses"--I couldn't find any more "Classics"--and some of them are a bit surprising. I thought you all might be interested. :) They're listed by name, lowest place on SSA list, and year it placed there:
Christine 398 (2005)
Esther 330 (2000)
Helen 364 (2004)
Nancy 318 (2005)
Priscilla 382 (1892)
Rose 393 (1997)
Ruth 353 (2003)
The other difficult bit is that quite a few names hold up as Near Misses if you go with BtN's records (which show by decade, for the most part), but then there'll be a year or two in which they went below 400! Arrgh. ;) I kind of think it should be opened up to any name that's never been below the 500 mark--otherwise, neither Anne nor Jane count as American classics!
But overall, it's kind of a fun treasure hunt.
Array
O come, all ye Grateful
Deadheads to the concert.
O come, Grateful Deadheads,
And camp in the street.
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
my all time faves
i love these:
Nancy 318 (2005) *
Rose 393 (1997)
Ruth 353 (2003)
Elizabeth 26 (1945)
Sarah 119 (1959)
Margaret 133 (2004)
Julia 143 (1977)
Rebecca 185 (1926)
Victoria 269 (1936)
Charlotte 311 (1982) *
Caroline 329 (1956)
Lydia 334 (1975)
Miriam 376 (1969)
Claudia 380 (1929)
Grace 390 (1974)
"a boy's best friend is his mother" - Norman Bates in Psycho
i love these:
Nancy 318 (2005) *
Rose 393 (1997)
Ruth 353 (2003)
Elizabeth 26 (1945)
Sarah 119 (1959)
Margaret 133 (2004)
Julia 143 (1977)
Rebecca 185 (1926)
Victoria 269 (1936)
Charlotte 311 (1982) *
Caroline 329 (1956)
Lydia 334 (1975)
Miriam 376 (1969)
Claudia 380 (1929)
Grace 390 (1974)
1
Also: Ruby
Ruby actually more or less qualifies as classical.
I'm wondering if there is an easier way of doing it.
Ruby actually more or less qualifies as classical.
I'm wondering if there is an easier way of doing it.
1
That's very interesting. :) I missed the post the first time around, so it was very interesting to see as well. I guess if you think about it, there aren't many names that we'd consider to be "classics", esp. for girls for some reason.
1
LOL, I went and looked back at that thread because I remember coming up with this elaborate way to determine what is "classic" ... but my response was this lame little empty post. I must've fallen asleep while I was at it =P either that or I decided CKE's way really was better. Probably the latter.
My problem with the method was that Jane wasn't on the list! Neither is Diana (maybe it's not considered classic? Or it was too pagan seeming before the 20th c?). Or Linda. Or Virginia (how could this not be an American classic?!). But they're all close. Jane, I think, is only off because other forms of it have been fashionable - Jean, Joan, Janet etc.
(Basing all this on BtN's info only -- I am not scrounging through the 1880s & 1890s lists because I am too lazy.)
More under-500s
Alice
Leah
Patricia
Teresa
Angela seems to easily make the cut for CKE's classic definition, and Caroline too, and Georgia I think might count despite having fallen to 600s in the nineties... just because it's a state-name.
- mirfak
My problem with the method was that Jane wasn't on the list! Neither is Diana (maybe it's not considered classic? Or it was too pagan seeming before the 20th c?). Or Linda. Or Virginia (how could this not be an American classic?!). But they're all close. Jane, I think, is only off because other forms of it have been fashionable - Jean, Joan, Janet etc.
(Basing all this on BtN's info only -- I am not scrounging through the 1880s & 1890s lists because I am too lazy.)
More under-500s
Alice
Leah
Patricia
Teresa
Angela seems to easily make the cut for CKE's classic definition, and Caroline too, and Georgia I think might count despite having fallen to 600s in the nineties... just because it's a state-name.
- mirfak
1
Angela didn't make my original list because of the 1880s -- its lowest ranking in the 126 years we have SSA data was in the very first year, 1880, when it was only #683. Caroline was a "near miss" by my original definition. Georgia's lowest ranking of #722 was in both 1986 and 1989.
Linda would have been a "near miss" by my original definition except for the very last three years of data, 2003-2005, when it falls below #400. I'm not sure if it really was as common as an original birth certificate form back in the late 19th century as the SSA figures seem to indicate. Remember that anyone born before the 1930s will have had his or her Social Security information entered into the system after they were already an adult, and so may have been using a different form than their parents originally gave them. I think a lot of the 1880s Lindas may have been Melinda or Belinda originally, just as in male names I think the SSA data has way too many men listed as just "Joe". I've never seen "Joe" as opposed to "Joseph" so popular in a list created from birth certificate data as it is in the SSA data.
How interesting you all remembered this! I was only proposing my criteria as one possible definition; there certainly could be others. There is no official board that rules on what is or is not a "classic" name! :)
Linda would have been a "near miss" by my original definition except for the very last three years of data, 2003-2005, when it falls below #400. I'm not sure if it really was as common as an original birth certificate form back in the late 19th century as the SSA figures seem to indicate. Remember that anyone born before the 1930s will have had his or her Social Security information entered into the system after they were already an adult, and so may have been using a different form than their parents originally gave them. I think a lot of the 1880s Lindas may have been Melinda or Belinda originally, just as in male names I think the SSA data has way too many men listed as just "Joe". I've never seen "Joe" as opposed to "Joseph" so popular in a list created from birth certificate data as it is in the SSA data.
How interesting you all remembered this! I was only proposing my criteria as one possible definition; there certainly could be others. There is no official board that rules on what is or is not a "classic" name! :)
1
I remebered this because it's a good way to list classic names
Or at least, for the past 100 years. I really liked it. :-D
Or at least, for the past 100 years. I really liked it. :-D
1
From your list I like:
Christine
Helen
Priscilla
Rose
Ruth
From CKE's list I like:
Elizabeth
Mary
Katherine
Catherine
Sarah
Margaret
Julia
Sara
Rebecca
Rachel
Victoria
Emily
Future Mom to Adeline and...?
Christine
Helen
Priscilla
Rose
Ruth
From CKE's list I like:
Elizabeth
Mary
Katherine
Catherine
Sarah
Margaret
Julia
Sara
Rebecca
Rachel
Victoria
Emily
Future Mom to Adeline and...?
1
I like Ruth :)
1