Names Searched Right Now:
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by greyer View Post
    I know three Jonathans... One called Jon, one JD, and the other Jack! It's perfectly acceptable.
    Thanks Greyer

  2. #13
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    882
    I think it's acceptable, as in, it's done, but I always find it a bit silly. I'd wonder why you didn't just call him Jack. Jon is a much more intuitive nickname for Jonathan, IMO.

  3. #15
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9
    definitely works! love jack

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,003
    It's a bit of a stretch, Jonathan is not a variation of John

    Shea * Ashley * Jade * Azure * Shiah * Greer * Blaise * Pallas
    Lotus * Tallulah * Noor * Fox * Jasper * Linden * Arden * Adair

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,453
    I don't see a problem at all. John nn Jack is an established fact, and Jonathan is just a longer form of John, so I think it would be fine.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    711
    Certainly! Jack is a very exceptable nickname for Jonathan.
    a name nerd lovin' the classics

    a name nerd lovin' the classics
    a name nerd lovin' the classics

  7. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by essjay View Post
    Jonathan is just a longer form of John, so I think it would be fine.
    It's not, though, they're totally different names?

    Jon makes a lot more sense as a NN, given there's no history at all of Jack for Jonathan, only for John.

    The other thing is, of course, there's more Jacks right now than Jons, so a Jon would be more distinctive.

  8. #25
    Jack is a traditional nn for John, but John and Jonathan come from different roots and are not actually related. Thus Jack = nn for John does not also mean Jack = nn for Jonathan.

    However, I still think it's fine if you want to name him Jonathan and call him Jack. I get it. There's a traditional part of me that would rather see a John nn Jack, and on the other hand there's a part of me that says, "Why not?"

  9. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,453
    Oh, well all the Jonathans I know go by Jon/John, and Jack's a nn for John, so to me it's like nicknaming a nickname, if that makes sense. Even if they're of different origins I still think it can work, it's not the most common route to go down but it makes it more distinctive. I think Jonathan's much nicer than Jackson, which is the other common route to get Jack (other than John).

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    1,291
    The hardnosed namenerd in me wants to say no, since Jack is a nn for John, and Jonathan is etymologically closer to Nathan than John, but I know that's just splitting hairs. With that prominent "John" sound in Jonathan, and given that Jon and Jonny/Johnny are probably its most common nicknames, there's no real reason why Jack can't work. I say go for it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •