Comments on: Chupawhat?

By: Remus

Remus — Sun, 06 May 2007 03:00:40 +0000

You norteamericanos! There is so much to bring into this discussion…But it would all be moot.

Benjamin Radford is right. Nit-picking I think.

Happy Cinco!

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:47:45 +0000

Come on Ben, all words are made up…afterall…by humans. But some standards have to be maintained, and if Spanish cryptozoologists, writers, and scholars wish to share their insights into the correct use of their words, who am I too disagree? Actually, I’m rather tired of Anglo-elitists attempting to overturn Latino usages.

By: Benjamin Radford

Benjamin Radford — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:39:53 +0000

I use and prefer chupacabra (singular); proscriptive grammarians aside, “chupacabra” is also a popular usage and is thus “correct.” This is essentially a made-up word, and many neologisms don’t follow strict grammatical rules. As an editor, I can tell you that people will use whatever words they want to, and arguing against a popular usage is a waste of precious time!

By: tpeter

tpeter — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 05:09:35 +0000

Dear Loren,
I was particularly intrigued by your reference to Scott Corrales researching chupacabras reports going back to the 1970’s–so, it’s not just a fad or craze of the mid and late 1990’s.
Otherwise, you yourself have a good point.Chupacabras IS both singular and plural in Spanish, the final -s being an integral part of the word, which is thus quite comparable to invariable English nouns like deer, sheep, fish that are the same in singular and plural. As Spanish is an increasingly important and widely used language in the United States, there is little excuse for “Anglos” these days not getting it right.
On the other hand, unlike yourself, I myself happen to have little objection to saying or writing “Sasquatches,” analogously to English words like “witches, bitches, hitches, glitches, ditches, watches, latches, matches, batches.” This is because “Sasquatch” is not a genuine Amerind word but a 1920’s coinage by a White Canadian teacher, J.W. Burns, who blended several more or less similar Native Canadian words. Being invented, though after some Native Canadian models or prototypes, there is no need to give “Sasquatch” an original Salishan plural form–which would be far harder for most “Anglos” unfamiliar with Amerind linguistics to look up than the proper form of Spanish words!Most Borders or Barnes & Noble outlets and most local public libraries do not stock Salish dictionaries or grammars!
Regards,
T. Peter

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:06:55 +0000

Sorry Jimmy, I think you have to re-read my entry. The whole point is that Chupacabras is the plural and singular forms.

By: jimmy

jimmy — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:42:55 +0000

I agree w/ “godzilladude” in that “Its good to see you have things to do in the middle of the week.”

However, I could be wrong, but my observation is the following. If I understand correctly you are thrown off by the fact that the terms “Chupacabra” & “Chupacabras” are being used interchangeably. Well that’s like using the word “man” & “men” interchangeably or depending on the context in which they are used. “Chupacabra” is the “singular” form of the word, where as “Chupacabras” refers to the “plural” use of the word. Neither one is wrong.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:04:04 +0000

That’s actually quite funny considering I’m recovering from taking the redeye from being on “Attack of the Show” in sunny LA and dealing with the coming ice storm in Maine!

I guess Chupacabras have a calming effect on me.

By: godzilladude

godzilladude — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:57:12 +0000

Its good to see you have things to do in the middle of the week.