New Post
Search
HelpRe: Connor
in reply to a message by Olwen
Apart from James and Michael having been extremely popular as fns for a couple of millennia and Connor being recent and likely to be a flash in the pan, there's probably no difference at all. Wait ... maybe I'm on to something here!
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
You didn't say you disliked Connor because it was recent, though, you said you disliked it because it was a last name. Connor and James and Michael are all similar in that they are first names that have last names derived from them. That appeared to be your criticism.
If your view really was all along that any name that has not been common for millennia is unimaginative and pretentious - well, that's a really odd view.
If your view really was all along that any name that has not been common for millennia is unimaginative and pretentious - well, that's a really odd view.
1