View Message

It's not the worst. I don't mind the plural so much. Plenty of names have meanings that imply a group rather than an individual object. Like naming someone Orchard is basically the same as Trees even if technically it's singular. Roses looks both more whimsical and more formal somehow to me than Rose yet less appealing.

---

I'd prefer it to Peaches or Moses as fem.

This message was edited 8/23/2022, 10:12 AM

Meh. Much prefer Rose. Instead of the plural Roses, why don't make name combos that both names mean rose, like:

---

Rhoda Rose
Shoshana Rose
Suzanne Rose

There’s another girl in my class with the same name as me, and we get called “Almas”. Basically Roses suggests multiple people called Rose which makes no sense.

I like an unexpected plural name! Reminds me of Rivers and Fields, which I think work well.

it is... extremely silly

Rose's Lime Juice Cordial makes South African summers bearable, with water and lots of ice. I don't even like Rose as a given name, and making it plural doesn't help at all.

I usually don’t mind names that end with -s, (Hell my name ends in s) but I don’t really see the point here. It’s not horrible but why not just use Rose?

This message was edited 8/22/2022, 2:09 PM

The plural almost makes it sound weirdly masculine, like Moses. It wouldn’t sound good on anyone.

Even though it's not the same name, I'm suddenly reminded of the late Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof and how naming your kid a plural of something (especially a fruit, but this goes for flowers too) really should be avoided at all costs. I'm pretty sure Geldof went on record to say she hated her given name.

Well, around here, Rose's is a sort of crummy Dollar General type store so Roses would sound just like it. Also, I don't think plurals make good names.