Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 6 to 10 of 24
  1. #6
    In both cases I'd assume they were their full names. I know of many Jakes who are just Jake.

  2. #8
    Jake I probably would assume was short for Jacob, but Luke I wouldn't assume.

  3. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Northern Ireland/England
    I would just assume that they were just called Luke and Jake, as I know a lot more Lukes and Jakes than I do Lucases or Jacobs. In fact, despite their popularity, I don't know any Lucases and only about two Jacobs, and that's just peripherally.
    My furry darlings ~ Bodie the border terrier & Portia and Penny the guinea pigs


    Amabel ~ Beryl ~ Bryony ~ Cecily ~ Charis ~ Clara ~ Dinah ~ Flora ~ Georgiana ~ Ophelia ~ Rosamund ~ Sylvie ~ Tabitha ~ Tamsin ~ Violet


    Arthur ~ Barnaby ~ Basil ~ Bertie ~ Darcy ~ Elliot ~ Felix ~ Fraser ~ Frederick ~ Henry ~ Monty ~ Rowan ~ Rupert ~ Theodore ~ Tristan

  4. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    I would assume that Luke was the full name and that Jake was a nn for Jacob. That is only because that has always been the case for the Lukes and Jakes that I have met. Both could be perfectly legitimate as full names and I don't think it would be that bad if people thought those were their nicknames when they first met them. That happens to my brother often, but it hasn't been an issue and people quickly learn that his name isn't short for anything.

    I think Luke and Jake might be a little too close for brothers and I prefer Luke to Jake.
    Not expecting, just planning and building lists!

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    I agree with everyone else. I also prefer Luke and Jake to any longer versions.

Posting Permissions

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