New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] John...
in reply to a message by livieluvbug
...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.)
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.)
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
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