New Post
Search
Helpnicknames as full names continuation
all those who commented assumed i had no idea that Luke and John were actually full names. i do. i just prefer if the child is given the longer name (WHETHER THAT IS WHERE THE NAME CAME FROM OR NOT) so they have more options as a nickname. if someone is given the name John, they cant be called much except John, Johnny, etc. but, if they are given the name Jonathan or Johannes, they have other options.
also, most of you made references to the 1800's. i dont know if you noticed, but we dont live in the 1800's. we live in the 21st century. in this day and age, it is much more common for someone to be named Jonathan and Lucas instead of John and Luke. i dont care what they did two hundred years ago, i was referring to my own time.
for those who didnt see the original, here is the link: http://www.behindthename.com/bb/view.php?id=3101512&board=baby
also, most of you made references to the 1800's. i dont know if you noticed, but we dont live in the 1800's. we live in the 21st century. in this day and age, it is much more common for someone to be named Jonathan and Lucas instead of John and Luke. i dont care what they did two hundred years ago, i was referring to my own time.
for those who didnt see the original, here is the link: http://www.behindthename.com/bb/view.php?id=3101512&board=baby
This message was edited 12/21/2007, 9:38 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
*sigh*
Firstly, don't shout. It's rude.
Secondly, if you're going to make statements, please be prepared to back them up with facts.
You said: in this day and age, it is much more common for someone to be named Jonathan and Lucas instead of John and Luke.
Last year in the US, Luke waws 43rd in popularity, while Lucas was 59th. John was 20th and Jonathan was 22nd.
Luke and John are more popular than Lucas and Jonathan respectively. This rather kills off your theories about how they should be used.
I've never known a Lucas that went by Luke, by the way, and all of the Jonathans I know go by Jon, not John.
Please try to get your facts straight!
Firstly, don't shout. It's rude.
Secondly, if you're going to make statements, please be prepared to back them up with facts.
You said: in this day and age, it is much more common for someone to be named Jonathan and Lucas instead of John and Luke.
Last year in the US, Luke waws 43rd in popularity, while Lucas was 59th. John was 20th and Jonathan was 22nd.
Luke and John are more popular than Lucas and Jonathan respectively. This rather kills off your theories about how they should be used.
I've never known a Lucas that went by Luke, by the way, and all of the Jonathans I know go by Jon, not John.
Please try to get your facts straight!
1
Well I think it depends on the name. Some names I would use the full name. But I feel that some nicknames are fine as their own names. But like I said it depends on the name.
1
How many options does a Jonathan have that a John doesn't? A John can be Johnny, Jack, Jackie, Jake. As far as I can tell A Jonathan could also go by Nathan...which is about it. Also John doesn't even seem like an appropriate nickname for Jonathan. Jon would be the more likely spelling.
You are generalizing when you say "most" referred to the 1800's...only one, maybe two posters made a reference to that, so don't put words in our mouths.
Also, nickname names are rising in popularity. Look how high Jack is on the list. Not john or Jackson...just Jack.
Jonathan has stayed pretty consistent in popularity since the 70's, so i don't think it is "more common for a child to be named Jonathan" nowadays rather than John.
I agree with some others, that your original post was a bit vague on the direction you wanted to take. It might have been more helpful if you said, "I like Jonathan nn John and Lucas nn Luke, what do you think about those names?"
You are generalizing when you say "most" referred to the 1800's...only one, maybe two posters made a reference to that, so don't put words in our mouths.
Also, nickname names are rising in popularity. Look how high Jack is on the list. Not john or Jackson...just Jack.
Jonathan has stayed pretty consistent in popularity since the 70's, so i don't think it is "more common for a child to be named Jonathan" nowadays rather than John.
I agree with some others, that your original post was a bit vague on the direction you wanted to take. It might have been more helpful if you said, "I like Jonathan nn John and Lucas nn Luke, what do you think about those names?"
1
I don't understand why you're getting so upset, to the point where you're "shouting" with all those capitals in one sentence and pretty much forgetting capitalization elsewhere.
It looks as if you're confusing short names and nicknames, your previous post gave no indication that you are actually aware John and Luke are names in their own right, and since this is a site for people who're interested in names, and it's extremely easy to check the origin of a name, people get bugged by things like that.
John and Luke might not meet your taste because they're short, and generally I tend to prefer 2 or 3 syllable names myself, but it's not the same thing as giving a child Bobby or Allie as a full name. Nicknames look silly on adults, especially in professional contexts, short names,and especially one as classical as John don't.
Incidentally, there's no need to go back to the 1800s as the time where John was super-common, it might be have fallen out of use recently but I do know a few John 's of various ages, it's certainly not disappeared.
It looks as if you're confusing short names and nicknames, your previous post gave no indication that you are actually aware John and Luke are names in their own right, and since this is a site for people who're interested in names, and it's extremely easy to check the origin of a name, people get bugged by things like that.
John and Luke might not meet your taste because they're short, and generally I tend to prefer 2 or 3 syllable names myself, but it's not the same thing as giving a child Bobby or Allie as a full name. Nicknames look silly on adults, especially in professional contexts, short names,and especially one as classical as John don't.
Incidentally, there's no need to go back to the 1800s as the time where John was super-common, it might be have fallen out of use recently but I do know a few John 's of various ages, it's certainly not disappeared.
1
I think you are over reacting having read the original thread I honestly can't see why you are being so hostile.
Your post stated that you dislike nn being used as full names but gave examples using names that are in themselves full names, you gave no indication on whether or not you knew they were full names that are often used as nn for other names, you say you hate nn as full names yet list several nn in your favorites list.
People are going to question your statement and put up their own views and arguments after all this is an opinion board and many people have different tastes and idea's when it comes to names.
Personally I prefer longer forms of names and really dislike the trend towards cutsey nicknamey names here in the UK names like Jack Jake Ellie Evie Archie Alfie Max Libby Liam Lola Tia Mia Tilly Demi Billy Joe Sam it is in fact becoming more common to see children with these names than names like Jonathan Joseph William.
Oh and only one poster out of 17 or so made a reference to the 1800 that I could see
Your post stated that you dislike nn being used as full names but gave examples using names that are in themselves full names, you gave no indication on whether or not you knew they were full names that are often used as nn for other names, you say you hate nn as full names yet list several nn in your favorites list.
People are going to question your statement and put up their own views and arguments after all this is an opinion board and many people have different tastes and idea's when it comes to names.
Personally I prefer longer forms of names and really dislike the trend towards cutsey nicknamey names here in the UK names like Jack Jake Ellie Evie Archie Alfie Max Libby Liam Lola Tia Mia Tilly Demi Billy Joe Sam it is in fact becoming more common to see children with these names than names like Jonathan Joseph William.
Oh and only one poster out of 17 or so made a reference to the 1800 that I could see
This message was edited 12/22/2007, 6:11 AM
1
Yes they are cute but to me that is the problem, on a four year old they are adorable but on a twenty four year old some look rather silly
This message was edited 12/22/2007, 7:14 AM
1
I honestly, really think this whole conversation is ridiculous. it's about what the individual person likes. not everyone LIKES the longer version of the name, some people prefer short names, some people prefer long ones. maybe they don't like either.
and if you hadn't noticed, alot of people on the boards enjoy classic names with no nicknames intended. I am not a fan of nicknames in the least. if the child hates their name so much they can just as easily go by a middle name.
As for the names you actually listed, I don't care for any of then. Luke, Lucas, Jonathan or John. they're all a bit bland.
P.S; your CAPSLOCKRAGE kind of irritates me.
and to make this clear, I read the original post, and I don't think anyone was really very rude to you so I don't even know where your anger is coming from, this is an opinion message board. and alot of people aren't aware what names are full names and what names are nn's.
and if you hadn't noticed, alot of people on the boards enjoy classic names with no nicknames intended. I am not a fan of nicknames in the least. if the child hates their name so much they can just as easily go by a middle name.
As for the names you actually listed, I don't care for any of then. Luke, Lucas, Jonathan or John. they're all a bit bland.
P.S; your CAPSLOCKRAGE kind of irritates me.
and to make this clear, I read the original post, and I don't think anyone was really very rude to you so I don't even know where your anger is coming from, this is an opinion message board. and alot of people aren't aware what names are full names and what names are nn's.
This message was edited 12/22/2007, 4:56 AM
1
No, you are wrong. John and Luke are slightly more common than Jonathan and Lucas in the US.
I don't like the name Jonathan, but I love John.
Some people prefer shorter names over long ones.
I don't like the name Jonathan, but I love John.
Some people prefer shorter names over long ones.
1
I didn't see your first post so here's my opinion. I agree with you, the person gets much more nn freedom with the longer name. And how boring is John? So common. Lucas is actually becoming kind of uncommon so that's nice. It's refreshing and much more dignified to have a longer full name.
1
John...
...has fallen in popularity quite a bit, from a steady #1 for centuries to #20. "But that's still common!" Sure, but it's less common than all the Calebs and Jacobs running around in my generation and the one younger than me. Off the top of my head, I don't know a single John. Jonathan is #22, by the way. I guess those two extra spaces make it much more uncommon than the "so common" John?
Don't understand your point about Lucas either. It's been steadily GAINING, not LOSING, popularity, so it can't be becoming more uncommon.
And I cannot see how John, probably the most classic name in the world, isn't dignified to you, but I guess we'll agree to disagree on that. (Personally, I find John much more regal and dignified than Jonathan, though I don't have a problem with Jonathan.)
...has fallen in popularity quite a bit, from a steady #1 for centuries to #20. "But that's still common!" Sure, but it's less common than all the Calebs and Jacobs running around in my generation and the one younger than me. Off the top of my head, I don't know a single John. Jonathan is #22, by the way. I guess those two extra spaces make it much more uncommon than the "so common" John?
Don't understand your point about Lucas either. It's been steadily GAINING, not LOSING, popularity, so it can't be becoming more uncommon.
And I cannot see how John, probably the most classic name in the world, isn't dignified to you, but I guess we'll agree to disagree on that. (Personally, I find John much more regal and dignified than Jonathan, though I don't have a problem with Jonathan.)
1
True, but people's notions of 'common' don't only cover the last couple of years. We've all known (and known of) so many Johns throughout our lives that it's only natural it feels generic now.
1
That's valid, but honstly, a young John and a young Jonathan would encounter about the same amount of people sharing their name. And I don't know all that many Johns of any generation. Don't know that many Marys either.
1
I agree
and really, I don't understand you original point about John. It is not nny in any way. It can stand on its own, so I would rather see a John than a Jonathan "John", who always went by "John". Same with Lucas. I'd say Luke and John were the most classical of the two.
But then again, I come in with a British perspective where it is much more common to be named Ellie than Eleanor "Ellie" at the moment. I tend to agree with longer names so the child has more choice, but where a classic name can stand on its own there is no point in giving a longer and often unrelated name just ot make it seem "more formal".
And agreeing with Dot here, how is John boring? It's been decreasing in popularity and has a lot more history than some of today's common names.
and really, I don't understand you original point about John. It is not nny in any way. It can stand on its own, so I would rather see a John than a Jonathan "John", who always went by "John". Same with Lucas. I'd say Luke and John were the most classical of the two.
But then again, I come in with a British perspective where it is much more common to be named Ellie than Eleanor "Ellie" at the moment. I tend to agree with longer names so the child has more choice, but where a classic name can stand on its own there is no point in giving a longer and often unrelated name just ot make it seem "more formal".
And agreeing with Dot here, how is John boring? It's been decreasing in popularity and has a lot more history than some of today's common names.
1
I think John and Luke are still more common nowadays. John also has about as many options are Jonathan, I think (he can also be Jack, Jackie, Jake...). And would you really call Johannes (yo-HAN-es) John? There's no John sound, even if it is a form of John. (You could call him Hans, which I find adorable personally, but not John.)
I didn't respond to the original post so I don't know quite where the anger is coming from. I assume people wanted to assure you that those names were full names just in case you didn't know. A lot of people DO assume that Luke, Mark, Lily, Sophie, Sylvie, and others are nicknames and it rather ticks me off, as they're legitimate full names. I don't know how you phrased it in your original post, but it was probably ambiguous. You should probably have clarified that there and not made a new post.
I didn't respond to the original post so I don't know quite where the anger is coming from. I assume people wanted to assure you that those names were full names just in case you didn't know. A lot of people DO assume that Luke, Mark, Lily, Sophie, Sylvie, and others are nicknames and it rather ticks me off, as they're legitimate full names. I don't know how you phrased it in your original post, but it was probably ambiguous. You should probably have clarified that there and not made a new post.
1
"I didn't respond to the original post so I don't know quite where the anger is coming from."
Ditto this. Could you perhaps put up the original post link so we know where you are coming from?
Ditto this. Could you perhaps put up the original post link so we know where you are coming from?
1