Modern English's preference for the etymology of first names

...to be unknown from the perspective of a monolingual native English speaker. In other words, it seems that in English, we like it when we can't know at face value the meaning of people's first names, and it seems weird when we can.

This is something I've noticed as a kid, but hadn't quite put to words till now. (I'm a native English speaker.) I've noticed that English likes it when the etymology of first names is unclear and hates it when it is clear. Let me explain:

I hear that in many American Indian tribes, people's first names are often taken directly from compounds of words in the tribe's lexicon, so you get names like "blessed spring" and stuff in the Indian language.

In Japanese, first names are often built from compounds, such as _momoko_, which is built from _momo_ "peach" and _ko_ "child."

In English, however, creating a compound of words from the modern English lexicon for a person's first name is quite simply something that never happens. (Or if it does, rarely and it would seem strange to native English speakers.)

The same seems to occur for country names. It's like English speakers are like: "Do whatever you have to to get a useful set of syllables for your name, but we don't want the meaning of the name staring us in the face!"

Has anyone else noticed this?

Is this not a feature of other languages though? The languages many English names come (German, French, etc.) do not necessarily have obvious etymologies either.

To answer the question more directly, though, I think Americans (I can only speak as an American, I'm not forgetting the English, Aussies, etc. out there, I just can't speak for them) tend to have a serious inferiority complex with regard to other cultures because of how young American culture is. That's why "Momoko" meaning "peach child" sounds cool to an English speaker, but actually naming a child "Peace Child" or something like that sounds weird, odd, hippie, etc.

Another example, it's more fun to say "my name means spear-warrior in Old Irish" than having the name "Spear Warrior" which just seems silly.

I have an immediately recognizable place-name as my first name, but even that has an etymology that means something slightly less literal. However, that gets overpowered by the place association. So it's not quite as removed as "Spear Warrior" in ancient Gaelic -- my name's meaning is always front and center to people who hear it for the first time. (Conversely, since I am so used to it, it's kind of lost any meaning for me, and has just become a sound. But it still weirds me out slightly to hear it applied to its geographical context.)

Paris?

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch?

Virginia?

Where is the place called Uriel ?

There's a place called Orel in Russia.

<<In English, however, creating a compound of words from the modern English lexicon for a person's first name is quite simply something that never happens. (Or if it does, rarely and it would seem strange to native English speakers.)
>>

Names like "Moonbeam" and "Skywalker" are yes very hippyish, but they do occur.

Most of our names were originally similar componds that have either lost connection to their associated words (Stanley, Ashley vs. stone leigh, ash leigh) or are preserved forms of the original componds which oftentimes no longer survive in the general wordhoard (Roger < hruoth ("fame") + geir ("spear") [cf. Beowulf's 'Hrothgar']; Henry < Heim ("home") + rik ("ruler"))

There are lots of Hispanic people with place names, although mainly because the places are named after people.

Santiago
Asunción
Bogotá
Madrid
Ciudad de México

A similar phenomenon could be observed in English.

America was named after Amerigo Vespucci.