(Jonahthan.)
I am not pregnant, I was just wondering because I’ve seen it spelled this way and it seems a lot more unique than regular [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m].
No. No, it’s not. It looks like [name_m]Jonah[/name_m] and [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m] smooshed together.
There’s always [name_m]Johnathan[/name_m] or [name_m]Jonathon[/name_m], but I would spell it the regular way. If you want a more unique name than [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m], choose a name other than [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m] [name_f]IMO[/name_f].
Is this a troll? If not a troll, then NO. No, it is not a good way to spell [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m]. Misspelling isn’t unique, it’s downmarket and ignorant.
It makes me want to say ‘[name_m]Jonah[/name_m] than’, which wouldn’t even resemble [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m]…
I would definitely just stick with [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m]. Maybe even [name_m]Johnathan[/name_m] if you really wanted the extra ‘h’ in there.
ALL of this.
That is an awful way to spell [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m].
Exactly. [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m] is a classic, and if doesn’t have enough oomf on it’s own, than choose another name that does. I suggest [name_m]Jeremiah[/name_m] or [name_m]Josiah[/name_m].
[name_m]Johnathan[/name_m] looks bad. Jonahthan looks, if possible, worse. The cluster of “hth” looks like nothing so much as a typo.
[name_m]Jonah[/name_m], [name_m]John[/name_m], and [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m] are three separate names and I don’t like mashing any two together.
[name_m]Jonathan[/name_m]/[name_m]Jonathon[/name_m] are the only options I’d consider aside from Yonatan.
If you want something different there’s a lot of obscure J names around.
I actually really like [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m]. It is classic, though. I actually don’t mind that it’s not “different.” If I wanted different I would drop it altogether in favour of [name_m]Jabez[/name_m]/[name_m]Jarlath[/name_m]/[name_m]Jethro[/name_m]/[name_m]Joaquin[/name_m] or something.
i’d stick with [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m], or [name_m]Jonathon[/name_m].
I think all the others looks weird, and I’m the kind of person who likes to spell names differently.
A classic name should have the classic spelling in my view. You are otherwise condemning the poor child to a lifetime of having to correct other people’s spelling of their name.
um Jonahthon makes me want to say [name_u]Jo[/name_u]-nuh-thun ([name_m]Jonah[/name_m] + thon) instead of [name_m]John[/name_m]-uh-thon ([name_m]John[/name_m] + thon), so no! Stick with [name_m]Jonathon[/name_m].
No, it’s not a good way to spell [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m]. Either use [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m] or [name_m]Jonah[/name_m] or don’t use it at all.
No, no, no! Jonahthan looks like typo of [name_m]Johnathan[/name_m] or [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m]. Stick with [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m]. : )
Jonahthan looks wrong–in fact, I’ll go so far as to say it’s ‘KreE8tV’, if you know what I mean…
[name_m]Jonathan[/name_m] is the best spelling
[name_m]Just[/name_m] stick with [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m] [name_f]IMO[/name_f].
I would spell it [name_m]Jonathan[/name_m] just to avoid confusion. It would be annoying for the child if he had to constantly spell out his name for everyone.
It’s an awful spelling to be honest.
I think it is a tired name in general, and no, I would not spell it [name_m]Jonah[/name_m]-thon. I see [name_m]Jonah[/name_m] and it just doesn’t work.