View Single Post
  #37  
Old 04-04-2016, 05:30 AM
Disgruntled Penguin Disgruntled Penguin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
"Kennedy" was chosen as a given name for lots of newborns during / after JFK's presidency. Prior to that almost nobody had that as a given name. IOW, that name became repurposed from being exclusively a family name to also being a given name.

Thudlow's point being that what we think of as a typical family name, or a typical given name, is completely arbitrary and changes over time. To the degree that's true the OP's question is mostly meaningless. Any complete name can be seen as a combo of two names either of which could reasonably be a family name and either of which could reasonably be a given name.

e.g. Taylor was unheard of as a given name in my childhood back in the 1950s. Today every elementary school in the land is positively lousy with cute little Taylors running around squealing at one another.

In countries with formal lists of legally acceptable given names the situation is quite different. The USA is past that silliness and if some ethnic groups are taken as thought leaders on this, soon enough every possible combo of pronounceable syllables will be a valid name belonging to somebody.
Kennedy is not a first name I've never seen in the wild. Now, granted I'm just one person and the stats do bear out that it was in the top 1000 names for a long while, I never saw it and I was born around that time. Since it says "Highest Percentage: 0.012% in 1964" those would be my peers and again, nothing.

It reminds me of Kunta Kinte from roots fame. Kunta was popular for a bit but I've never met anyone who was named it. Heck, it was a one hit wonder but "Highest Percentage: 0.014% in 1977" you'd think I'd have run across it at some point.

None of these lists breaks down regionally and I'd suspect that there is a bit of this going on here. Popular doesn't mean popular everywhere after all.