Our original favorite is [name]Jonathan[/name], but are now considering [name]Jack[/name]. Could [name]Jack[/name] be used as a possible nn if we stay with [name]Jonathan[/name]?
[name]Jack[/name] seems an obvious and logical nn for [name]Jonathan[/name]! And he’ll probably thank you for giving him a formal full name on his birth certificate, instead of a nickname.
It is totally possible because [name]Jack[/name] is a nickname for [name]John[/name].
I think just calling him [name]Jon[/name] is way better, and actually more original. [name]Jack[/name] is cute but super overdone.
If it can be a natural nickname for [name]John[/name], I don’t see why it wouldn’t be a natural nickname for [name]Jonathan[/name]. Absolutely! [name]Love[/name] [name]Jonathan[/name] by the way – a classic that’s not overused.
I disagree. I don’t think it’s usable. Same way [name]William[/name] gets bill, I know it happens all the time, but I think it’s silly
I’m sorry, but no.
I dislike nn that don’t match up with the name… so to me [name]John[/name] is a much better choice… If you want a fuller name for [name]Jack[/name] there is [name]Jackson[/name]
I know three Jonathans… [name]One[/name] called [name]Jon[/name], one JD, and the other [name]Jack[/name]! It’s perfectly acceptable.
Absolutely! My Dad’s name is [name]John[/name] and he always went by [name]Jack[/name]. I don’t see the problem.
Thanks Greyer 
I think it’s acceptable, as in, it’s done, but I always find it a bit silly. I’d wonder why you didn’t just call him [name]Jack[/name]. [name]Jon[/name] is a much more intuitive nickname for [name]Jonathan[/name], [name]IMO[/name].
definitely works! love jack
It’s a bit of a stretch, [name]Jonathan[/name] is not a variation of [name]John[/name]
I don’t see a problem at all. [name]John[/name] nn [name]Jack[/name] is an established fact, and [name]Jonathan[/name] is just a longer form of [name]John[/name], so I think it would be fine.
Certainly! [name]Jack[/name] is a very exceptable nickname for [name]Jonathan[/name].
It’s not, though, they’re totally different names?
[name]Jon[/name] makes a lot more sense as a NN, given there’s no history at all of [name]Jack[/name] for [name]Jonathan[/name], only for [name]John[/name].
The other thing is, of course, there’s more Jacks right now than Jons, so a [name]Jon[/name] would be more distinctive.
Edited for privacy.
Oh, well all the Jonathans I know go by [name]Jon[/name]/[name]John[/name], and [name]Jack[/name]'s a nn for [name]John[/name], so to me it’s like nicknaming a nickname, if that makes sense. [name]Even[/name] if they’re of different origins I still think it can work, it’s not the most common route to go down but it makes it more distinctive. I think [name]Jonathan[/name]'s much nicer than [name]Jackson[/name], which is the other common route to get [name]Jack[/name] (other than [name]John[/name]).
The hardnosed namenerd in me wants to say no, since [name]Jack[/name] is a nn for [name]John[/name], and [name]Jonathan[/name] is etymologically closer to [name]Nathan[/name] than [name]John[/name], but I know that’s just splitting hairs. With that prominent “[name]John[/name]” sound in [name]Jonathan[/name], and given that [name]Jon[/name] and [name]Jonny[/name]/[name]Johnny[/name] are probably its most common nicknames, there’s no real reason why [name]Jack[/name] can’t work. I say go for it.
1 Like
I can see how logically it could work, jack-john, john for [name]Jonathan[/name], but personally it is not my favorite. If you are always going to call him [name]Jack[/name], I would name him [name]Jack[/name]. When people read [name]Jonathan[/name], they are typically going to say [name]John[/name].