I had the unexciting job of being an impartial person who pulled names from a basket for the lottery of next year's class at a charter school where my daughter is the secretary. Something over 500 applicants for about 240 places. I drew the card, someone wrote the number on it, my daughter read the name aloud -- to the room full of parents and some students -- and another secretary entered it into a computer. I listened to the names of these 14 and 15 year olds. Many Taylers and Tylers, Hannahs and Emmas. There were some ethnic names but our area is markedly Yankee so I was astonished at the end because among all 500 I don't think I heard a John, George, Edward, Charles, David or James nor did I hear a Mary [one Maria], Elizabeth, Anne, Margaret, Barbara nor any of those J girls so popular in my generation, Jane, Joyce, Joan, Jean and Jennifer.
Name popularity is trendy. Every now and then I come across lists of "most popular baby names this year". They reflect our demographics and they reflect popular entertainment stars. Nevertheless I remained amazed that in New England the solid names of 50, 150 and 250 years ago are rare. However, my daughter, who has had to file and deal with all the applications tells me that many of the old names, especially for girls, remain as middle names.
And isn't it wonderful that the possibilities are so great that even in some of the largest cities' phone books many names are oners. Mine is one of those combinations that a Google search tells me has no match in all their files. Isn't it wonderful that parents look at their tiny babies and expect them to be unique, give them unique names and watch them grow into unique individuals. And then it may happen that a time will come when they sit in a room where a lottery is drawn waiting to hear that name, hoping the boy or girl will get a certain kind of education. I was truly impartial but I couldn't help looking at the little girl whose eyes swam with tears when she heard her name among the chosen, and then later at the parents sitting stoically as they did not hear their children's names until the numbers were so high they could not possibly climb up that wait list.
This feed has moved and will be deleted soon. Please update your
subscription now.
-
The publisher is using a new address for their RSS feed. Please update your
feed reader to use this new URL:
*http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/atom.xml*
3 years ago
7 comments:
June -- I noticed, a few years ago that the names from my generation had dropped from the popularity list. I subbed for several years after I retired and never in the few years of subbing did I run into one Barbara in any of the classes -- no June, Shirley, Judy, Nancy, either. It seemed that the John, Robert, Jim, names of my generation were still mentioned on my class lists once in a while. Interesting post -- barbara
Thanks, Barbara. I keep thinking of names I didn't hear in that list. But what goes around comes around. The Zacharys and Meagans will become Williams and Marys again some day.
Thanks, Barbara. I keep thinking of names I didn't hear in that list. But what goes around comes around. The Zacharys and Meagans will become Williams and Marys again some day.
You all should be in the deep south to see the names. Never see a June, Barbara or a Diane
i have an "old" name, lorraine, which i don't, and haven't ever liked. usually i don't hear it much. i met a much younger woman who had this name, and wondered, why? what were her parents thinking, what relative was she named after?
what goes around, comes around, even with names.
Thanks for your note, Rainne --is never occurred to me that was short for Lorainne. I think it's a nice name and it would be nice if it comes back. At the moment I know only one Lorraine personaly.
When I read the title of this "Where Have all the Johns Gone?" I thought porta potties? Why would June write about that?
Post a Comment