You know, it depends on the child and the family with me. I’ve known both versions and although the difference is just an “H”, there is a difference for me.
I don’t mind Jon, but I am of the opinion that it should be short for Jonathan. John stands on its own. My baby brother is named Jon, and it drives me nuts that is not a short form.
I agree that John is a name on its own, and Jon is a nickname for Jonathan. If I didn’t want to name my kid Jonathan, but just John, I would spell it with an H.
I agree with the Jon=Jonathan business and that John works by itself.
I also have a suggestion for a future poll, just cause I’m curious: What do people think about the nickname “Jack” for John? Lots of famous people have done this, but I still get wierd looks when I tell them that’s my son’s name. (Ex: JFK – John “Jack” Kennedy)
my little boy is John and called Jack too. I’ve had a few people think that his formal name should be Jackson not John. I think Jack as a nickname for John has been around forever but the whole Jackson/Jack thing is kinda trendy. Anyway, we are talking about John here and of course I like it best with an H since that is how we spelled it. I typically just think that classic names should be left in their classic state and not altered by new spellings.
I’m going out on a limb here, or at least against the current, because I like “Jon” over “John.” I a. don’t like silent H’s, and b. Think Jon looks like a younger, hipper version, whereas John appears much older to me. For such a classic old standard, I think the non-H spices it up. I also like Jack as a nickname for Jon, and don’t think its weird.
I think of the name John as boring and elderly, and associated with all the associations like going to the john, John Q. Public, Why can’t Johnny write?, servicing five johns in one evening, etc. I think of Jon as a cute guy our age, or a cute baby boy.
John and Jonathan are totally separate names. While both are biblical names, Jonathan is found in the Old Testament, John in the New Testament. “Jon” is a nickname for Jonathan, not an alternate spelling of John. Some have tried to combine the two names by naming a son Johnathan, which is merely a cre8tive (non-standard) spelling of Jonathan.
Both John and Jonathan are classic male names. If parents want their son to end up as John, then name him John; if they prefer Jon, then the given name should be Jonathan, unless they intend to give their son a nickname as his given name.
The Oxford Dictionary of First Names says that Jon is both an alternate spelling of John and a nickname for Jonathan. It’s likely that the alternate spelling comes from versions of John in other languages, such as Jan in Norway and Poland and The Netherlands, and Ian in Scotland. In Sweden, they use both Jan and Jon, along with Johan.
My son is John nn. Jack. I agree that John is a name, Jon a nickname.
And, I also agree that Jackson/Jack is trendy — yet I get questions and comments CONSTANTLY on why I named my son John if I wanted to call him Jack. I have to constantly mention JFK.
You know, it depends on the child and the family with me. I’ve known both versions and although the difference is just an “H”, there is a difference for me.
Fun to think about!!! I don’t think I can decide…
I don’t mind Jon, but I am of the opinion that it should be short for Jonathan. John stands on its own. My baby brother is named Jon, and it drives me nuts that is not a short form.
I agree that John is a name on its own, and Jon is a nickname for Jonathan. If I didn’t want to name my kid Jonathan, but just John, I would spell it with an H.
I think John for both a stand-alone name and a nickname for Jonathan.
I agree with previous commenters … John is a stand-alone name, Jon is short for Jonathan.
I agree with the Jon=Jonathan business and that John works by itself.
I also have a suggestion for a future poll, just cause I’m curious: What do people think about the nickname “Jack” for John? Lots of famous people have done this, but I still get wierd looks when I tell them that’s my son’s name. (Ex: JFK – John “Jack” Kennedy)
my little boy is John and called Jack too. I’ve had a few people think that his formal name should be Jackson not John. I think Jack as a nickname for John has been around forever but the whole Jackson/Jack thing is kinda trendy. Anyway, we are talking about John here and of course I like it best with an H since that is how we spelled it. I typically just think that classic names should be left in their classic state and not altered by new spellings.
I’m going out on a limb here, or at least against the current, because I like “Jon” over “John.” I a. don’t like silent H’s, and b. Think Jon looks like a younger, hipper version, whereas John appears much older to me. For such a classic old standard, I think the non-H spices it up. I also like Jack as a nickname for Jon, and don’t think its weird.
I am with the pp who said that John is just John but Jon should be Jonathan, otherwise it’s kind of too too, for me.
Yeah, I’m another Jon should only be for Jonathan person.
And it’s funny. I like the name “John” but can’t stand “Jon.”
And yes, I am well-aware that this makes no sense whatsoever.
I prefer the look of “Jon”.
But that’s also because the “Jon” I knew (it was short for Jonatahan) was a good-looking young, cool guy…
And all of the “John” ‘s I know, are older, less attractive middle-age men.
So I think it’s personal associations with particular people that make me find one spelling more attractive than the other, lol.
Either way, it’s not a name I like very much. Just personal preference.
Oops – typo… meant to say ** it was short for JONATHAN, not whatever crazy name I ended up typing up there, LOL.
I like John over Jon, and usually think of Jon as a nickname for Jonathan.
I love the nn Jack for John and we may name our son Jack in honor of his dad, whose name is John.
I think of the name John as boring and elderly, and associated with all the associations like going to the john, John Q. Public, Why can’t Johnny write?, servicing five johns in one evening, etc. I think of Jon as a cute guy our age, or a cute baby boy.
I think the name Jon is cute, especially if it is short for Jonny or Jonathan. I don’t like John as much, which doesn’t make sense really!
John and Jonathan are totally separate names. While both are biblical names, Jonathan is found in the Old Testament, John in the New Testament. “Jon” is a nickname for Jonathan, not an alternate spelling of John. Some have tried to combine the two names by naming a son Johnathan, which is merely a cre8tive (non-standard) spelling of Jonathan.
Both John and Jonathan are classic male names. If parents want their son to end up as John, then name him John; if they prefer Jon, then the given name should be Jonathan, unless they intend to give their son a nickname as his given name.
The Oxford Dictionary of First Names says that Jon is both an alternate spelling of John and a nickname for Jonathan. It’s likely that the alternate spelling comes from versions of John in other languages, such as Jan in Norway and Poland and The Netherlands, and Ian in Scotland. In Sweden, they use both Jan and Jon, along with Johan.
To me, Jon is just a nickname for Jonathan. So, I choose John.
My son is John nn. Jack. I agree that John is a name, Jon a nickname.
And, I also agree that Jackson/Jack is trendy — yet I get questions and comments CONSTANTLY on why I named my son John if I wanted to call him Jack. I have to constantly mention JFK.