 |
These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.
Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.
This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.
This is a topic from the The 2000's forum on inthe00s.
Check for new replies or respond here...
Subject: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: Donnie Darko on 06/13/06 at 3:24 pm
Would anyone say that a cultural generation can be dated partly by what names are common among people their age? For instance those born from the mid '90s onwards (Gen Z and very late Gen Y) are the ones with names like Jacob, Madison, etc., whereas those born in the '80s and early '90s (Gen Y) tend to all have similar names like Matt and Jessica, which is partly why I consider those born in the late '90s Gen Z and not my generation.
There were notable naming trend changes around 1980, 1988, 1994, and 1999, all of which can mark generational changes.
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/13/06 at 5:18 pm
Roughly. A woman named "Lisa" is likely to be under 40. A woman named "Maude" is likely to be over 80!
:-\\
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: velvetoneo on 06/13/06 at 5:19 pm
A man named James is most likely of any decade to be in his 60s, but it never goes out of style.
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: Trimac20 on 06/13/06 at 10:22 pm
I'm sure you've started this thread before ??? ;)
But anyway...
Yes, very much so. Karen, Margaret, Sue, Helen are all very Boomer names, Lisa is a GenX name, while names like Rebecca and Claire are quite Gen Y.
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/13/06 at 11:03 pm
There otter be a law against naming children of either sex the following:
Madison, McKenzie, Taylor, Piper, Dakota, or Wynter
::)
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/14/06 at 12:28 pm
There otter be a law against naming children of either sex the following:
Madison, McKenzie, Taylor, Piper, Dakota, or Wynter
::)
Yeah, Madison and Mckenzie are really supposed to be last names anyway so they shouldn't really be a first name it just dosen't sound right to me. As far as Dakota and Wynter, there's just no excuse for giving your kid a name like that ;D
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: Trimac20 on 06/14/06 at 12:34 pm
Yeah, Madison and Mckenzie are really supposed to be last names anyway so they shouldn't really be a first name it just dosen't sound right to me. As far as Dakota and Wynter, there's just no excuse for giving your kid a name like that ;D
Yeah, naming your kids after states, countries or cities is annoying. Like 'India', 'China', 'Dakota.'etc
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/14/06 at 1:02 pm
Yeah, naming your kids after states, countries or cities is annoying. Like 'India', 'China', 'Dakota.'etc
Yeah, I knew some people named Asia and Carolina and there was a guy who was a freshman at my school last year who's name was Kansas :D
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: wsmith4 on 06/14/06 at 1:04 pm
OMG i thought you were leaving!!
somebody save me
Subject: Re: Can generations be defined by the names their members bear?
Written By: Donnie Darko on 06/14/06 at 2:02 pm
Yeah, naming your kids after states, countries or cities is annoying. Like 'India', 'China', 'Dakota.'etc
Australia? ;D