New Post
Search
HelpI agree
in reply to a message by Dot
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.
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.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1