please answer this question about baby names?

Question

OKay, almost everyone these days wants a "unique" name for their baby, so they choose names like-Chloe, Ava, Riley, dahdahdah.....
so if everyone has unique names , wouldnt that mean that those so called "unique"names are actually common?
And also those good solid "common" names like Lauren, Elizabeth, etc. are actually turning into unique names because nobody is naming there kids these names anymore?
i was just wondering if anybody else agreed with me?

Answer 1

I agree that unfortunately uninformed parents ARE using already-popular names and falsely thinking them somehow "unique" -- Madison, Mia, Kayla, Nevaeh, Avery, Mackenzie, Maya, Trinity, Brooklyn, Aubrey, Jayla, Jada, Caden/Kaden, Jaden/Jayden, Brayden, Hayden, Aidan/Aiden, Landon, Jackson/Jack, Noah, Ethan, etc. ALL well within the top 100 most commonly-given names in the states! LOL And yes ... your own examples of names people choose for their "uniqueness" are already VERY common! Riley around the top 50 (for girls), Chloe in the top 20 and Ava literally the fifth MOST COMMON girl name out there at the moment. ;)

And it's true that parents who actually DO try to find something unusual generally gravitate toward the same grouping of names, such as London, Dakota, Cheyenne, Phoenix, Talon/Talan, Skylar/Skyler/Skye, Payton/Peyton, Hudson, Ryder, Xander, Eden, Asia, Presley, Cash, Sage and the like. Again, all well within the 500 most common choices, and generally chosen by these same types of parents (so seeming predictable, boring choices even if they aren't among the top 100). Not to mention the fact that many of these are randomly-trendy place, word or tribal names, so prone to blatant misspelling more often than not ... meaning the "name" itself is usually far more common than the numbers would imply, once you consider (for example) Cheyanne, Shyann, Shyanne, Shaianne, etc., rather than just traditional Cheyenne.

And certainly, while Elizabeth and Lauren -- at 11 and 24 respectively -- are still quite popular choices (not "unique" by any means), they can definitely SEEM refreshing in a sea of modernly-trendy recent coinages and purposeful misspellings. After all, most aren't ignorant enough to butcher a classic with something like "Allyzubeth," so those are relatively safe when it comes to such trends (though I'll admit, I have seen it happen on occasion).

So if you meant to say that parents are obviously misleading themselves as to what is "unique," and really choosing names that are already quite common, that's certainly true. As is the fact that parents choosing the same "unusual" names are equally predictable and not at all unexpected or overly-interesting. And yes ... I'll take a timeless classic -- popular or not! -- over an overused trend that seems already-dated any day. ;)

Answer 2

Names go in cycles, like fashion. Chloe and Ava are actually some of the most popular names for babies right now, but people think they are being unique because they don't know many adults with that name.

You're right- name your kid a traditional name these days, and you can almost guarantee that they will be the only kid they know with that name.

Giving a child a unique name does not make the child unique.

Answer 3

Yes. I'm hearing of a lot more kids named "unique" names nowdays and since i hear them so much i don't really think of them as unique anymore. I still know a lot of Laurens, Elizabeths, etc. but do think that fewer people are naming their kids these names and in the future they will be the unique names. good point.

Answer 4

Ok. Yes, when so many people start using the 'unique' names, they indeed become common, popular names. So one day, the usual 'common' names you mentioned will probably be unique once again. Kinda like how all the toys from my childhood are back in stores now, or how Trix the cereal changed from round puffs to fruit shapes, and back to the original round puff and they call it 'new'! You're definitely on to something...

Answer 5

Very true. In the last week, I saw 4 Dakotas, 2 Cheyennes and 3 Madisons (2 boys, 1 girl) but not one Scott, Elizabeth, Jennifer, etc. under 10 years old.

Answer 6

Yes I agree to some extent. Some names are neither unique nor common. People should stick to those names Like Melinda for example.

Answer 7

You make a great point there. My daughter has a VERY unique name....its Kimmerle(which is my mother's maiden last name)
I DO Like the name Lauren, as you asked in your previous question...Also, is I were to have had another girl, her name wold have been Linny Jane(I got a tubal ligation though, so I won't be able to use that name though..:( GOOD LUCK naming your baby girl!

Answer 8

The names are only unique until everyone start naming their kids those names. I still like the good old fashion names (even though I didn't name my daughter one). You are so right the new unique names are the good ol standbys from yesteryear.

Answer 9

I agree. People are going crazy with unique name so much that some of these children are going to hate their parents when the get older. I wanted unique with my first child and now her name is one of the most popular, Alexis, now i am more traditional my middlle child is heather and my son is elijah .That is about as normal as can be its from the bible but people still look at me strange when i say his name.

Answer 10

I fail to understand why people insist on giving their children "unique" names. It's as though they doubt their children will be unique individuals in their own right, and need the boost of an odd name to make them more interesting human beings. It's sad!