He’s a nineteenth-century rarity, newly returned to the Top 1000 in 2009.
Thanks to Rachel for suggesting Archer as Baby Name of the Day.
He’s a nineteenth-century rarity, newly returned to the Top 1000 in 2009.
Thanks to Rachel for suggesting Archer as Baby Name of the Day.
It’s that time of year.
The official Social Security Administration list won’t be out until May, but unofficial lists have been circulating since mid-December.
Here at AppMtn, I can’t possibly claim that the most popular posts will be reflected in the Top Ten – or even Top 100 – baby names in use. Many of the names I write about are obscure. Some are downright weird. (Habakkuk, anyone?) Others probably chart simply because AppMtn is one of the few sites to cover the name in any detail.
And yet, if you look at the lists carefully, there are ripples. A few of these are definitely coming to a playground near you.
After last week’s bumper crop o’ starbabies, it has been a relatively quiet week.
The only big question is this: Did Hank Azaria really name his son Hal? Or have they simply not released his full name? Wikipedia tells me that dad’s full name is, indeed, Hank Albert - so maybe they decided junior should have a nickname name, too.
Here’s the rest of the news:
From the wayback machine – a year ago, the Name of the Day was Madrigal. Really. This week’s names will be Naomi, Lyle, Eugenie, Boaz and Kylie.
I’ll leave you with a quick update on search names – Esme continues to top the list. Lorelei, Isla, Pomeline, Java, Eithne, Aurelia, Ayelet, Noa and Oona are close behind. The list is much shorter for boys: Finn, Elmer and Remus. If you can’t tell from the list, boys generate far fewer searches than girls. And yet, nearly everyone agrees that boys’ names are harder to decide than girls’ names.
I’m off to fill up the wading pool for me the kids. As always, thanks for reading!
Once upon a time, he was more common than Andrew or Alex.
Thanks to Photoquilty for suggesting Elmer as Name of the Day.
Visit nearly any baby name forum and it’s amazing how often you’ll hear variations on one comment:
Give your kid a normal name!
What’s more dazzling is that this criticism can be in response to nearly any choice – from a chart topper like Ava or Aiden, to standards like Henry or Beatrix.
I’d like to put forward a simple tenet of baby naming: there is no such thing as normal.
The definition of normal is regular; conforming to the common type. The best measure of this then, must be the Top 20 – or perhaps 50 – names, and thanks to the Social Security Administration, data on “normal” names is readily available.
Scan it for a few minutes, and I’m sure you’ll agree: just like hemlines have always varied, baby names have come in and out of vogue. With the exception of a very few names – mostly for boys – the Top 50 are far from a stable list. Continue reading