New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: American "classic" girl names revisited
in reply to a message by Array
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
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1