New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Nicknames as names?
What do you think of "nicknames" as a full name? Such as Sam instead of Samuel. I think most Samuels automatically shorten their name to Sam anyway, so why name your child something you never plan to call them? There are a bunch of other short names too, like Max, that seem acceptable as names on their own. So tell me, wdyt?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I don't think giving nicknames as full names is wrong, persay, but it's definitely not my preference. I myself tend to go by a nickname fairly routinely, but I love having the choice and flexility of using my longer, more formal name. To use your example, a Samuel can always go by Sam, but not vice versa.
That said, like several others have mentioned, I (subjectively) feel more strongly about some names than others. Names like Eliza, Max, or Leo can stand entirely on their own, and Sam is borderline for me. Sammie, though, would definitely be out.
That said, like several others have mentioned, I (subjectively) feel more strongly about some names than others. Names like Eliza, Max, or Leo can stand entirely on their own, and Sam is borderline for me. Sammie, though, would definitely be out.
1
I generally dislike it. You might not call someone by their full name, but it would be used in professional or formal situations.
In this discussion I always like to give the example of a doctor's office near where I live. The sign outside of it says "Dr. Nick Surname." It looks really unprofessional.
I would especially stay away from nicknames as full names that can't be pinpointed on one specific full name. Like Nell, for example. There are multiple names it can be a nickname for, so what would you use as its meaning? I know meaning isn't that important to some people, but it is to me.
There are a handful of nicknames that I don't mind as full names. Molly and Jack are two examples. In fact I even prefer Molly on its own to being a nn for Mary because I love Mary just how it is. Jack I can never decide on whether I like it best on its own or as a nn.
In this discussion I always like to give the example of a doctor's office near where I live. The sign outside of it says "Dr. Nick Surname." It looks really unprofessional.
I would especially stay away from nicknames as full names that can't be pinpointed on one specific full name. Like Nell, for example. There are multiple names it can be a nickname for, so what would you use as its meaning? I know meaning isn't that important to some people, but it is to me.
There are a handful of nicknames that I don't mind as full names. Molly and Jack are two examples. In fact I even prefer Molly on its own to being a nn for Mary because I love Mary just how it is. Jack I can never decide on whether I like it best on its own or as a nn.
This message was edited 7/3/2009, 1:17 PM
1
I don't like it. It's true that most Samuel end up as Sam and Thomas as Tom, but still it's better IMHO to be Samuel or Thomas in formal situations. This said, I like Max on its own. And I can tollerate those kind of nns that work on adults as well, like Alex, Kate, Nick and so forth. What I find really ridiculous is saddling for life someone with a very childish nickname like Maddie or Timmy.
1
I feel some nicknames are fine as given names and others aren't. I really don't have any formula to determine which nicknames I feel work as given names and which don't. It's completely subjective.
For example, these are fine as given names:
Kate (not Katherine or Kathleen), Greta (not Margaret or Gretchen), Nora (not Honora or Eleanor), Nathan (not Nathaniel), Beth (not Elizabeth), Lisa (not Elizabeth)
These seem too lightweight as given names, and I feel they need the long version for formal papers, etc.:
Becky, Katie, Sally, Sadie, Millie, Lily, Daisy, Polly, Sam, Joe, Mike
These, I can't decide:
Max, Leo, Alex
And these may SOUND like nicknames, but I have heard they originally started out as given names so I think these are fine as given names:
Lucy, Julie, Sophie, Sylvie
For example, these are fine as given names:
Kate (not Katherine or Kathleen), Greta (not Margaret or Gretchen), Nora (not Honora or Eleanor), Nathan (not Nathaniel), Beth (not Elizabeth), Lisa (not Elizabeth)
These seem too lightweight as given names, and I feel they need the long version for formal papers, etc.:
Becky, Katie, Sally, Sadie, Millie, Lily, Daisy, Polly, Sam, Joe, Mike
These, I can't decide:
Max, Leo, Alex
And these may SOUND like nicknames, but I have heard they originally started out as given names so I think these are fine as given names:
Lucy, Julie, Sophie, Sylvie
1
Actually, yes!
I too feel this way about certain names. It's the nicknames that make me love them, not the full version! Gus, Archie, Charlie, Louie and Toby are some names that instantly come to mind. Funnily, I feel more like this about boy's names, not so much girls. There are a couple examples; Hattie, for instance, and Eliza, but not as many as the boy's camp.
I personally don't see anything wrong with giving nicknames as full names. I think it's kinda hip actually. Well, in most cases. As long as the nickname has enough strength to stand alone. I would feel pretty sorry for a little girl named something like Missy or Prissy. The name has to has some weight to it.
I too feel this way about certain names. It's the nicknames that make me love them, not the full version! Gus, Archie, Charlie, Louie and Toby are some names that instantly come to mind. Funnily, I feel more like this about boy's names, not so much girls. There are a couple examples; Hattie, for instance, and Eliza, but not as many as the boy's camp.
I personally don't see anything wrong with giving nicknames as full names. I think it's kinda hip actually. Well, in most cases. As long as the nickname has enough strength to stand alone. I would feel pretty sorry for a little girl named something like Missy or Prissy. The name has to has some weight to it.
1