View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Re: Ruby
Sometimes people use names for their pets that they love enough to use for a child, but they are not planning on having any more or any children. That's why I once had a dog named Miranda and my sister once had a dog named Sean.However, if some accident had occurred to either of us, or if our plans had changed, I may have named a daughter Miranda and my sister may have named a son Sean. In this case, it would be because we wouldn't have wanted to eliminate a name we loved because we at one time thought we wouldn't have more children. It wouldn't have been naming the child after the pet.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

But the child will still hear stories about the pet, and know that you just recycled the name of an animal rather than thinking they were special enough to deserve their own.
vote up1
Not necessarilyYou can’t predict what an as yet non-existent child will think about their name.
vote up1
Well exactly. You don’t know if they’re the type to find it hurtful or shameful or not. So why not play it safe and give them their own special name, just for them? There’s a whole world of wonderful names out there.
vote up1
Nice save ;)
vote up1
One of my dogs is named Lara, which is a very common human name here. We know several little Laras and they all like that they share a name with a big, lovable dog. I also know a family where a dog is named Riki and the cat is Lili, after the kids’ best friends Rikardo and Liliana. All the kids think it’s fabulous and hilarious. Children, especially those who love animals, often don’t see it as a negative thing at all.
vote up1