Results 1 to 5 of 11
Thread: Down-To-Earth names?
September 22nd, 2013 05:39 AM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
I've been seeing on the boards lately some emphasis on finding/using "down-to-earth" names. I'm a bit confused about this.
What is classed as a "down-to-earth" name and what isn't?
I've seen examples of Frances being more "d-t-e" than the like of Francesca. Is it frilly names that are extravagant to the point of being not "D-T-E"?
Does anyone have any insites or opinions towards this? Or examples?• teenberry • Australia •
Ivy Delphine - Heidi Theodora - Sylvia Rue
Archer Valentine (Archie) - Mason Rafael - Beau Darius -
Solomon Ambrose (Solo)
"And in that moment, I swear, we were infinite" - Stephen Chbosky
September 22nd, 2013 05:53 AM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2011
For me it isn't frilly names that are not d-t-e, but rather names that sound like they really belong in a book. Names that seem unapproachable or strange. It's really more about comfort level I think. Clinging to more what you are use to and feeling like some names are too exotic, or just too much. Something you'd have a hard time taking seriously. For example...
Penelope to me looks like a lot of name, but I don't think most people would call it frilly, more spunky. But for me it's just too much. There are sounds in the name that are just not spoken often, and so it sounds foreign to my ears, and weird in my mouth.
Agnes is a popular name here, definitely not a frilly name. I feel that this name is way over the top. Someone found out vintage names were stylish, and so they found the most awkward sounding name, again one that has sounds not often spoken, and said, "Hey ya'll, I'm brave enough to use this." It tries way too hard IMO. For me, this is not a down to earth name.
Hope that helps some. ♥
Last edited by ninanoo; September 22nd, 2013 at 05:57 AM.Wanting to be pregnant.
September 22nd, 2013 05:59 AM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
I think of down-to-earth being names that require no explanation at all.
Doesn't have to be top ten or anything, but ones that are not at all controversial, foreign, or wacky. Nothing that makes people wonder WHY you'd do that. I don't think Frances quite counts actually as I'd put retro/clunkies in a separate category. It is less frilly than Francesca but I think of down-to-earth not even being old-fashioned, exactly, even though some have quite a lot of history behind them.
Claire, Jane, Nora, Grace, Alice, Hannah. Doesn't have to be straight up C/Katherine and Elizabeth though I consider those down-to-earth too by virtue of being so utterly evergreen.
Not every classic name counts, in my book. Cecilia, Genevieve, and Annabel are certainly historic/classic/beautiful but none of them are DTE to me. And DTE and granny-chic are different - Emily is DTE, Hazel is granny chic. Plenty of grandma Emilys floating around, but it doesn't say "look how out-of-the-box my parents are!"
This is just my interpretation/thoughts. It's only my two cents.
September 22nd, 2013 06:52 AM #7
Everyone has a different idea of down-to-earth, I think, so it's hard to narrow it down! I personally see down-to-earth names as those for which I picture a person with them being down-to-earth, approachable etc. so it's nothing to do with the names themselves, I find! But in general, 'frilly' names aren't (in my opinion), and neither are all classics necessarily. It just depends for me.
September 22nd, 2013 08:34 AM #9
Cecily Amabel vs. Celia Alice
They're both beautiful with a similar style, but the first is over the top quirky, bold in a 'look at me!' kind of way. The second is far more humble, less in-your-face, she would fit in anywhere without a fuss.
People tend to think that names which aren't so DTE are trying too hard to be unusual or interesting. I don't think either one is better. I like to find a balance.for future darlings
Una ⋆ Isobel ⋆ Fenella
Trudie ⋆ Rosario ⋆ Billie
Emmett ⋆ Baez ⋆ Rufus
Eoghan ⋆ Alec ⋆ Wilfred