“Bigfoot”, as it is now understood, is clearly a monster. Even if there is an animal at the core of all the stories, it’s obviously buried under layers of misconceptions, misperceptions, frauds, popular retellings, etc. For example, those people who believe that “Bigfoot” is some sort of trans-dimensional being (whatever that is supposed to mean), would not be happy if a bipedal hairy ape were found living in North America; they might even insist that the ape was not a “real Bigfoot”, just an animal that looked like one. Bigfoot researchers with pet theories that could not be reconciled with the specimen would still cling to the belief that maybe, after all, some creature different from the specimen still remains unverified by science.

It’s not really clear, under those circumstances, what the bipedal ape would be called, even as a popular name. I think there’s a VERY GOOD chance that a new name would be adopted to make a clean break with the tangle of connotations that attach to “Bigfoot” and “Sasquatch”. Only after that happens can we really worry about the grammar of the new name.

So I propose Sasquatch young to be Sasquirts.

Oh….and if I’m not mistaken, “Oh-mah”, depending on the spelling, can mean “Grandmother” in some dialects of Dutch. I’ve only known a few Dutch farmwives…way back in early childhood. Always wondered about those long dresses, and elaborate bonnets…hmmm…best not go there.

“sasquatch: Use lower case for the hairy man-like creature that has been reported in British Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. In stories exclusively set in the United States we may use the term Bigfoot (not Big Foot) but explain that they are also called sasquatch. Both terms are the same in singular or plural.”