I’ve posted further on this issue and a response to Roger Knight’s comment above at Bigfoot, Not Bigfeet – Continued here.

with link…

But for the tribe known as Blackfeet (because of their dark-colored moccasins, according to the site I visited), the components did describe the referent, and hence should be pluralized in the normal way (… feet). Similarly with Bigfoot. Its components describe their referent.

No, you’re incorrect about the Maple Leafs. They’re not called that merely because the owner named them that. They’re called that because they represent the maple leaf found on the Canadian flag, and accordingly on their jerseys. They are not meant to be seen as a group of actual leaves.

Therefore a Toronto Maple Leaf – referring to a hockey player, not to a leaf on a tree that happens to be growing in Toronto – becomes a proper noun, which adopts its own grammatical framework independent of its parts.

Just like if you introduced Gordon Lightfoot and his brother to someone, you might say “These are the Lightfoots” not “These are the Lightfeet”.

Capitalization of the names of undocumented species was not just a whim of Greenwell’s, but is an established scientific standard. We should therefore abide by it.

There’s no way that merely capitalizing “Bigfoot” causes the general public to think that a single individual is involved. That confusion arises only when a proper name like Nessie or Champ is used. Proper names are capitalized, but it’s obvious to everyone that Bigfoot is instead a generic term.

The Bords were as knowledgeable as anyone, and they used “Bigfeet” as the plural in their Casebook, and retained that usage in the version republished last year. (E.g., in the title of Ch. 7, on p. 121.)

The case of the team-name Mapleleafs does not indicate that this is the natural way the genius of our language forms plurals of that sort. It only indicates that the team owner dubbed his team thus. He could just as easily have dubbed them the Mapleleaves, and everyone would have happily accepted his ukase. If an NFL team owner had wanted to poke fun at the Giants by calling his team The Dwarves, it would have been equally acceptable (or equally objectionable) as The Dwarfs.

A much better indication of a natural (unaffected) plural is the case of the Blackfoot tribe of Indians. The natural tendency of English-speakers is to refer to a group of them as Blackfeet. (Including you, hypocrite lecteur.) I Googled and found, near the top of the list, an informational website that regularly used phrases like, “The Blackfeet used dogs to drag travois,” etc. If Blackfoot/Blackfeet, then Bigfoot/Bigfeet.

Insistence on avoiding a plural form that comes naturally to the English-speaking population is what might lead them into the error of thinking that only one of the critter exists.

Thanks!
–Lindsey

Consequently, people cannot really be blamed for asking us ignorant questions like, “Have you found him yet?” They may be genuine misled by incorrect capitalization and the ensuing implication that there is only one of each being. This syntax error will continue to mislead the public as long as it persists. I don’t think Richard intended to mislead the public or trivialize the subject by endorsing incorrect capitalization but that is the unintended consequence of his decision. In my view, the incorrect use of capitalization is a much bigger issue than pluralization because the consequences of this decision are so tragic. It actually keeps cryptozoology from being taken more seriously. Richard wouldn’t have wanted that!

BTW, Loch Ness monster is the exception, because Loch Ness is also a place name.