Is [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] too much?
I love the imagery of the name, but it feels a bit too nature-y/hipster-y. Both names being only one-syllable feels a little choppy/awkward to me. I like [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rosalie[/name_f] from your signature better.
I agree with the previous comment. Because they are both so short it does feel a little choppy. [name_f]Rosalie[/name_f] sounds beter
I like [name_u]Sage[/name_u], and I like [name_f]Rose[/name_f], but not together.
What about [name_f]Rosalie[/name_f] [name_u]Sage[/name_u]?
[name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] is too much. I think that you should stick to one nature name per name
Honestly, I feel in this case it depends on your last name. If it’s something short like [name_m]Parks[/name_m], then [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] [name_m]Parks[/name_m] is a little bit to short. But [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] Parkerson sounds a bit better.
[name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] from your signature looks really cute, though, if you’re super worried about there being too many plants. I’ve seen significantly worse nature names though, and this seems really tame.
I dont like the name [name_u]Sage[/name_u] as it is. [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] is too much and they’re both one syllable so it’s kind of clunky sounding.
Maybe [name_f]Solange[/name_f] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] or [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_m]Arthur[/name_m]?
I think it is a bit much, and I don’t think the combo flows very well, it’s too choppy
It’s choppy and too nature-y.
I don’t mind the two nature names together, but the flow is extremely abrupt.
Maybe you could do [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f]?
I have to agree that it is too much. I recently discovered that for me, when there are two names of the same category, it makes the whole name feel tacky to me.
I think [name_u]Sage[/name_u] OR [name_f]Rose[/name_f] would make a beautiful and sophisticated name, when paired with a name of a different style—- [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Catherine[/name_f], [name_f]Eleanor[/name_f] [name_u]Sage[/name_u], [name_f]Dorothy[/name_f] [name_f]Rose[/name_f], [name_f]Rose[/name_f] [name_f]Leandra[/name_f]. [name_m]Just[/name_m] examples.
I just don’t think it flows well. I second [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rosalie[/name_f], and suggest [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rosamund[/name_f], [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rosalind[/name_f]
[name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f]…[name_u]Sage[/name_u] Brush…yes, it’s too much.
I am obviously quite outnumbered here, but I actually love [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f]. I think it is both usable and beautiful. I love both names, and while they are both short and both nature names, I think that’s just fine. I don’t find the combo [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] to be remotely tacky. Rather, it is soft and natural. Now if you were asking about [name_u]Sage[/name_u] Brush or [name_u]Dusty[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] or [name_u]Winter[/name_u] [name_f]Snow[/name_f] I would try to steer you away, but [name_u]Sage[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] is lovely!
- From a nature name lover