Just found out we’re expecting a boy, and are eager to get his name sorted out.
The name my husband and I originally agreed most on was Thomas, but it has always felt a bit ‘safe’ to me. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I worry a little that he would forever have to have his last initial tacked onto his name as a differentiator. We have a fairly common last name, so I worry that together they get a bit bland. Our older son has a classic, but much less common, name, and I love that we’ve never run into another one his age.
Recently, we’ve been into Whit/Whitt as an option. I love that we likely wouldn’t run into many (if any) others, and like the overall feeling/style of the name. But we don’t love the full name options, so does it feel too nicknamey as a stand alone name? Will it get annoying to him when people assume it’s short for something? Or misspell/mishear it?
Would love any thoughts/feedback! Thanks in advance
So I am assuming you dislike [name_m]Whitman[/name_m], Whitfield, [name_m]Whitford[/name_m], Whittier, etc.?
It might make a difference if your first son had a long or a short name. If his name were [name_m]Peter[/name_m] and your next son was [name_u]Whit[/name_u], that would feel unbalanced to me. Not the world’s biggest deal though. I just think it’s nice if siblings all have names that can be informalized/shortened or they all have nickname names.
So [name_u]Whit[/name_u] feels to me like a nickname name. A cool one, but it does not feel complete. Personally, I would not add an extra t unless it were short for a longer name with two ts.
I wonder if there is another short name you like as well that feels more like a complete name? I think of [name_m]Keir[/name_m] which definitely feels like a full name to me.
Both Thomas & Whit are lovely - but if you’re looking for something more unique then I think Whit is great, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him as a sibling to, say, an Edmund - or whatever other uncommon classic name your first son has!
You could always go for a more unexpected way to get to Whit, like Wilbur “Whit”, Wilfred “Whit”, Wilder “Whit” etc., but I think it can stand on its own well. I think it’s likely it might get misspelled, but that’s not a big deal. My first name gets misspelled practically every time someone tries to write it, and correcting them has never bothered me.
I have a son [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] who goes almost exclusively by [name_u]Whit[/name_u]. (I’m really the only person who calls him [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m], and that’s not all the time.)
[name_m]Whitaker[/name_m] is a family name for us and is very rare on the Social Security numbers, but no one is ever confused or surprised by it, if you need another longer name option. I do think [name_u]Whit[/name_u] is a great name on its own.
[name_u]Whit[/name_u] is interesting…. In a good way! I do wonder if [name_u]Whit[/name_u] would get freustrated with puns and not having a fuller name to fall back on. If anything I’m not sure if a middle has been decided but I think [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] [name_u]Whit[/name_u] would be an unbelievably awesome combo!
I’ve been seriously crushing on [name_u]Whit[/name_u] lately. And feel the same way that you do, that [name_u]Whit[/name_u] is better than [name_m]Whitaker[/name_m], [name_m]Whitman[/name_m], etc. But what do you think about [name_m]Winston[/name_m] nn Wit/Whit? Is that doable? [name_u]Or[/name_u] even [name_u]William[/name_u], if you’re okay with a stretch.
On the other hand, [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] is a very handsome classic choice. And I don’t hear a lot of little Thomas’, really.
[name_f]My[/name_f] vote goes to [name_u]Whit[/name_u] because of your fairly common last name as I think it would be nice to be named something a bit more unique in that case. Both names are great though.
I have a bit of a different take, I’d go with [name_m]Thomas[/name_m]. [name_u]Whit[/name_u] is handsome but feels a little short to me. [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] [name_u]Whit[/name_u] would be a great combo!
I like [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] here. Esp if big bro has a classic name. [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] [name_u]Whit[/name_u] seems like a cool combo though. Good luck!
This is an interesting one. Both [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] and [name_u]Whit[/name_u] are great names, but very different.
I’ve always found [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] one of the most charming classics. It’s handsome, has a distinctive sound, nice nickname potential, never wildly popular but always well liked.
[name_u]Whit[/name_u] is quirky and cool, but in a way that feels traditional rather than modern or edgy. I’d be thrilled to meet a little [name_u]Whit[/name_u]. While I personally like names like Whittaker/Whitaker, [name_m]Whitman[/name_m] and Whitfield, I don’t think [name_u]Whit[/name_u] needs a longer form just for the sake of it. It’s short but solid.
On the basis of your common surname, I’m going to lend a vote to [name_u]Whit[/name_u]. I’d be pleasantly surprised to hear it, and it will give your son a name that’s more distinctly his.
Oh, I like both options! [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] is a favorite of mine, but I agree that it can sound bland with a very common surname. [name_u]Whit[/name_u] is charming but yes, a little incomplete. If it were me, I think I’d name him [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] [name_u]Whit[/name_u] but call him [name_u]Whit[/name_u], either as a nickname or an everyday day.
Other opens:
[name_u]William[/name_u] [name_m]Thomas[/name_m] nn [name_u]Whit[/name_u]
[name_u]Wynn[/name_u]
[name_u]Kit[/name_u]
