New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesWhat qualifies as archaic?
I was adding a name that was ranking in the top 2000 during the 1940s, and it was a variant spelling of another name that was listed as "archaic English". Could a name that ranked exclusively during the 1930s-1940s be classified as archaic, or would I just put the usage as "English"?
1
Replies
Archaic is for names that have not been in use much for over 100 years. I would say that if it isn't used now, and it was mostly 1930s/1940s, you can call it archaic. But mostly archaic is for if most bearers by now are no longer alive and it is not old enough to be medival.
3
Agreed. My paternal grandma's name is Agripina, and while it's seldom used in Brazil nowadays, I wouldn't consider it archaic yet since plenty of older Brazilian women with the name are still alive. My grandma is going to be turning 88 soon. She even considers her name to be an old lady name, especially since her late husband's name (Júlio) is a lot more timeless.
2
Looks like most of the Russian names in the database should be marked as archaic.
3
I imagine that the Russian Revolution played a large part in that, since after the Revolution people were discouraged from using names that were considered religious. Many older Russian names were those of Orthodox saints.
This message was edited 3/20/2025, 5:03 PM
2
Okay, thanks!
1