What is considered as being/ not being a stand alone names - confused!

[dayglobiscuit]

I like several names that are versions of a 'proper' name e.g katie, cassie, Molly. I don't mean names like cathy or that are shortenings but names that are dervived from another.

However, I just don't know what is considered a standalone name and what isn't. I like Cassie but looking through other threads, it seems that this is not considered a standalone name whereas Kate, Elsie for eg, are.

Can someone enlighten me! I like lots of these names but don't want to give my DD a half baked name!

Hmmm it's hard to say really, I think it's on a case by case basis. Also, what is a standalone name for one person isn't for another.

For instance I'd consider Cassie a standalone name, but not Katie.

I don't think there are really any hard and fast rules about stand alone names to be honest.
Cassie may have originally been the shortened form of Cassandra or whatever, but I don't see why it can't be a stand alone name.
Nine times out of ten most names are shortened to something else anyway, it's the nature of things.
Just go with what you like and don't over think it.
Most people won't bat an eyelid over a name unless it starts bordering on the ridiculous (Hashtag)or very pretentious.

The rules change over time. There was a time when it was considered a bit rubbish to give one's child a diminitive or pet name as their given name, but things change.
In my parents generation, Sally was short for Sarah-Anne or Sarah-Jane and only the uneducated would christen a child Sally. Only one generation later and when i was at school Sally was a completely normal name. I still think of Polly and Molly as diminitives bacsue I have (very) elderly aunts with these names who were defintiley not christened with them, but both my daughters have friends with these as full names.
I ramble (as always) but in short: choose something you love, and then either name them the full name and shorten it (gives them a choice later) or go for the diminutive if that is what you love and think will suit your child.

My ESD has one diminutive for the family, has the full name for teachers, and uses a compeltely different diminutive with her friends. Very confusing, but she's a teenager and wanted to do somethign different.

I don't have a problem with diminutives at all, but some people on MN get a bit rabid about them.

I don't think there are rules per se, but in general 'ie' and 'y' names feel more like diminutives (Ellie, Charlie) than others (Kate, Max, Tom).

I'd test whether the names you like fit a child, a teenager and an adult, that might rule out some of the 'half baked' ones.

I think your confusion may come from the fact that people have different views on what constitutes a 'stand-alone' name, so a lot of opinions get expressed at different times. It is a spectrum - many of the people who object to Cassie would also object to Kate, whilst others might accept one but not the other.

I am pretty extreme on this - if you want a child called 'Lola', you should put 'Dolores' on the birth certificate, and 'Jack' should be a nickname for 'John'.

However, what I think really shouldn't matter when someone else is naming their child (unless they want to call their children Eliza and Betsy, or Henry and Harry, in which case what I think really, really should matter).

To me, names like Cassie and Ellie don't feel 'derived' from another, they feel like nicknames (really nice nicknames!), so personally I'd prefer to use the full name, and call the child by the shortened version, to give them more options as they grow up. Also, the original name meanings can be lovely too (though poor Cassandra did have a rough time of it).

That said, with names like 'Alfie' in the top 10, our DCs are going to grow up in a world where nicknames as names are much more normal, so maybe it's just me being way too old-fashioned!