Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.
If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.
The kid could’ve been named “Anna” which also means blessing. She wanted to call her blessica because she was blessed to have her. Which yeah - just go with Anna
Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.
“Blessica” is a stupid name and naming someone that for those reasons is wrong. The husband is right. You don’t give kids quirky names, especially with a shitty surname already.
How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.
It’s not rarer, it’s unique. And just because something is unique, doesn’t mean it is good. You don’t think about yourself when naming a child. You think about the child. That’s why all of this is bullshit. If you want your kid to change their name / use their middle name, then go ahead - be selfish and go with “blessica”. I can already see five different ways the name can be twisted, and believe me, other kids will find fifty more.
I know multiple people with “unique” names or surnames. Some are in the process of changing them - start using a new surname, to later make it official in their papers. The kid won’t be unique or looked at favourably because they have a unique name either.
By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)
Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.
All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.
Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.
If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.
Anyways then you and your entire family and social group die in the same event, like a volcano burying your village.
The kid could’ve been named “Anna” which also means blessing. She wanted to call her blessica because she was blessed to have her. Which yeah - just go with Anna
Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.
“Blessica” is a stupid name and naming someone that for those reasons is wrong. The husband is right. You don’t give kids quirky names, especially with a shitty surname already.
How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.
It’s not rarer, it’s unique. And just because something is unique, doesn’t mean it is good. You don’t think about yourself when naming a child. You think about the child. That’s why all of this is bullshit. If you want your kid to change their name / use their middle name, then go ahead - be selfish and go with “blessica”. I can already see five different ways the name can be twisted, and believe me, other kids will find fifty more.
I know multiple people with “unique” names or surnames. Some are in the process of changing them - start using a new surname, to later make it official in their papers. The kid won’t be unique or looked at favourably because they have a unique name either.
By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)
Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.
All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.