Results 11 to 20 of 24
-
June 24th, 2012 08:31 PM #11
-
June 24th, 2012 09:48 PM #13
Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Posts
- 882
-
June 25th, 2012 02:04 AM #15
Junior Member
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Posts
- 9
definitely works! love jack
-
June 25th, 2012 02:22 AM #17
Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- Florida
- Posts
- 2,003
-
June 25th, 2012 07:53 AM #19
Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 1,453
-
June 25th, 2012 08:09 AM #21
-
June 25th, 2012 08:23 AM #23
Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Posts
- 2,821
-
June 25th, 2012 10:24 AM #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?"
-
June 25th, 2012 10:26 AM #27
Senior Member
- 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).
-
June 25th, 2012 11:09 AM #29
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.


Reply With Quote
