Comments on: Finding Bigfoot: “Bigfoot Hoedown” Tonight

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:07:48 +0000

gridbug: I’m with you on “Bigfoot” being correct, regardless of number, but my belief is that “Sasquatches” is the correct plural form of the other name.

But “Bigfeet” makes my skin crawl. Most Sasquatches already HAVE more than one foot.

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:03:33 +0000

mcw2112: MOVE OVER, Jeanne Dixon!!!

Wait – that came out wrong; she’s dead. You wouldn’t want to lie next to her.

By: mcw2112

mcw2112 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:53:58 +0000

Bobzilla: I don’t know the apparent dubious background of Mr. Moneymaker, as many here seem to, so having said that, I find that Bobo is one that seems to believe that every sighting is authentic. as loveable as the big guy is, he doesn’t seem to have single molecule of healthy skepticism in his entire body. I have seen Matt disbelieve several eyewitness accounts thus far, and yet Cliff and Bobo seem to accept any story as valid. Maybe Moneymaker’s past leads many of you to be wary of him, but I don’t see that he’s any worse than the other members of the team.

By: William

William — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:58:57 +0000

I think the use of the word bigfoot to describe one or more than one makes the most sense. It is akin to the word deer, or sheep, or elk. You don’t say I saw several sheeps grazing in the meadow, or the same with deer or elk.

By: dconstrukt

dconstrukt — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:45:01 +0000

i guess it would depend on the context no?

like if you said “I think i saw bigfoot” that would mean one….”I think I saw a bigfoot” would imply there’s more than one…

if you said “look at those bigfoot” would that be correct?

By: mcw2112

mcw2112 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:02:18 +0000

I don’t know, multiple deer are deer…

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:02:59 +0000

Ploughboy: Not sure what you were saying about the Blackfoot tribe. I HAVE seen the term “Blackfeet” applied. Maybe that’s what you meant. Excuse my equivocation.

By: gridbug

gridbug — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:42:36 +0000

I’ve been under the impression that “Bigfoot” is actually the plural form as well as the singular, in the same way that “Sasquatch” has the same dual use. That said, I’d definitely take Bigfeets (or anything else for that matter) over “squatch” any day of the week.

By: DWA

DWA — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:35:10 +0000

I wasn’t going to enter this sweepstakes. OK, I was but decided against it…except to note that the TBRC may have settled on “wood ape(s)” for a reason.

By: Ploughboy

Ploughboy — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:59:25 +0000

I don’t think the usage of “Bigfoots” is grammatically incorrect, just a little jarring to the ear. As a practical matter, language has to have some method of distinguishing a singular noun (in this case, a single animal) from the plural. If you use “Bigfoot” for both, you are only left with the context or the use of a modifier to distinguish singular from plural…not very efficient use of language. But, BigfootS is correct. You’re not pluralizing “foot”, after all. A Bigfoot already has two of those. Those with issues of this usage would be more correct in stating a single animal is a BigFEET. But, that horse left the barn 60 years ago. Doesn’t have quite the ring to it either, although I don’t think it transfers to referring to the BlackFOOT tribe.

Consider how to pluralize an animal known as Bigtooth. Would “Bigteeth” tell you any new information….aside from painting a vision of monstrous dentition? No, it wouldn’t.