plural of Bigfoot (was Re: early cultivated NA apples
Mike Cleven
>>Subject: Re: early cultivated NA apples
>>From: Mike Cleven iro...@bigfoot.com
>>Date: 5/23/2002 7:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3CED7AB7...@bigfoot.com>
>
>
> --snip--
>
>
>>Bigfoot don't use bowls.
>>
>>Mike Cleven
>
>
> Now, now; that should be *Bigfoots*, as Bigfeet is of a most vulgar sort.
I beg to differ. I can even get backup from cryptozoologists
specializing in sasquatchology; the plural is "bigfoot" (w/wo caps) just
as the plural of "sheep" is "sheep".
Sasquatch on the other hand, _can_ be pluralized if it is a
specifically-known _group_ of Sasquatches; if one is referring to homo
hayashlapiensis in a more general plural, the form is "sasquatch" (w/wo
caps). Here are two phrases for comparison:
"There were six sasquatches tearing the truck apart" vs.
"There are many sasquatch in that part of the mountains".
Many people do not bother with the specific-plural form, however, so
"There were six sasquatch tearing the truck apart" is also acceptable.
whereas
"There are many sasquatches in that part of the mountains" sounds
belaboured and over-pluralized.
"Homo hayashpiensis" is from the Chinook Jargon for "big foot" (the
actual Jargon terms for the beastie are seeatic, skookoom, tsiatko and
others). Cryptozoologists use the "homo" genus as an honorific here, as
it's not been proven whether this large and intelligent primate is more
closely related to humans or simians.
--
Mike Cleven
http://www.cayoosh.net (Bridge River Lillooet history)
http://www.hiyu.net (Chinook Jargon phrasebook/history)
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Richard Flavin wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: early cultivated NA apples
>>>From: Mike Cleven iro...@bigfoot.com
>>>Date: 5/23/2002 7:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <3CED7AB7...@bigfoot.com>
>>
>>
>> --snip--
>>
>>
>>>Bigfoot don't use bowls.
>>>
>>>Mike Cleven
>>
>>
>> Now, now; that should be *Bigfoots*, as Bigfeet is of a most vulgar sort.
>
>I beg to differ. I can even get backup from cryptozoologists
>specializing in sasquatchology; the plural is "bigfoot" (w/wo caps) just
>as the plural of "sheep" is "sheep".
>
>Sasquatch on the other hand, _can_ be pluralized if it is a
>specifically-known _group_ of Sasquatches; if one is referring to homo
>hayashlapiensis in a more general plural, the form is "sasquatch" (w/wo
>caps). Here are two phrases for comparison:
>
>"There were six sasquatches tearing the truck apart" vs.
>"There are many sasquatch in that part of the mountains".
>
>Many people do not bother with the specific-plural form, however, so
>
>"There were six sasquatch tearing the truck apart" is also acceptable.
Just thinking about this made me wonder if people with large feet
should be described as 'sasquipedelian' but my wife quickly squatched
that idea.
Eric Stevens
Gary Vellenzer
eric.s...@sum.co.nz says...
Gary
Yusuf B Gursey
: Sasquatch on the other hand, _can_ be pluralized if it is a
: specifically-known _group_ of Sasquatches; if one is referring to homo
: hayashlapiensis in a more general plural, the form is "sasquatch" (w/wo
you mean they already gave it zoological name?!
: caps). Here are two phrases for comparison:
Mike Cleven
> In sci.lang Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> : Sasquatch on the other hand, _can_ be pluralized if it is a
> : specifically-known _group_ of Sasquatches; if one is referring to homo
> : hayashlapiensis in a more general plural, the form is "sasquatch" (w/wo
>
> you mean they already gave it zoological name?!
A _crypto_zoological name; academic zoology has of course not recognized
its existence.
There are a couple of versions; I don't think I've got the spelling of
the version I posted correctly; but at least one version is based on a
latinization of the Chinook for "big foot" - hyas lapee/lapieh. Another
is "dahindinensis", after the late Rene Dahinden, one of the big
bugger's most ardent pursuers (who never did find one); but I don't
think that one uses 'homo' as the genus. I'd have to consult someone
else on the details.
Cryptozoology's named a few things: the Norwegian Sea Serpent - the
kind with the loops, horse's head and horns and googly eyes - is serpens
noruensis; serpens marinus (marinensis?) is the larger, more snakelike one.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > In sci.lang Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > : Sasquatch on the other hand, _can_ be pluralized if it is a
> > : specifically-known _group_ of Sasquatches; if one is referring to homo
> > : hayashlapiensis in a more general plural, the form is "sasquatch" (w/wo
> >
> > you mean they already gave it zoological name?!
>
> A _crypto_zoological name; academic zoology has of course not recognized
> its existence.
>
> There are a couple of versions; I don't think I've got the spelling of
> the version I posted correctly; but at least one version is based on a
> latinization of the Chinook for "big foot" - hyas lapee/lapieh. Another
> is "dahindinensis", after the late Rene Dahinden, one of the big
> bugger's most ardent pursuers (who never did find one); but I don't
> think that one uses 'homo' as the genus. I'd have to consult someone
> else on the details.
>
> Cryptozoology's named a few things: the Norwegian Sea Serpent - the
> kind with the loops, horse's head and horns and googly eyes - is serpens
> noruensis; serpens marinus (marinensis?) is the larger, more snakelike one.
NPR did an obituary for someone whose claim to fame was as a
bigfootologist, Grover Krantz, but in real life he was a geographer who
wrote a fascinatingly bizarre book containing a theoretical model of
language spread -- which would have accounted perfectly for the current
state of affairs in Europe, if only Basque were Afroasiatic and
Hungarian were authochthonous.
In the bibiliography, though, he references an earlier work of his, on
the dispersal of Northwest Coast peoples, in something called *Method
and Theory in California Archaeology* 1 (1977): 1-63 -- a journal(?)
whose existence seems not to be registered in any library in the US.
Perhaps there was never another number, presumably it contains no other
articles, does anyone know where to find it?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
:> In sci.lang Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
:>
:> : Sasquatch on the other hand, _can_ be pluralized if it is a
:> : specifically-known _group_ of Sasquatches; if one is referring to homo
:> : hayashlapiensis in a more general plural, the form is "sasquatch" (w/wo
:>
:> you mean they already gave it zoological name?!
: A _crypto_zoological name; academic zoology has of course not recognized
: its existence.
: There are a couple of versions; I don't think I've got the spelling of
: the version I posted correctly; but at least one version is based on a
: latinization of the Chinook for "big foot" - hyas lapee/lapieh. Another
: is "dahindinensis", after the late Rene Dahinden, one of the big
: bugger's most ardent pursuers (who never did find one); but I don't
: think that one uses 'homo' as the genus. I'd have to consult someone
: else on the details.
well, "homo" is indeed a stretch! any evidence of tool use? :)
: Cryptozoology's named a few things: the Norwegian Sea Serpent - the
: kind with the loops, horse's head and horns and googly eyes - is serpens
: noruensis; serpens marinus (marinensis?) is the larger, more snakelike one.
how about Nessie?
: --
Mike Cleven
> In sci.lang Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> : Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> :> In sci.lang Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : Sasquatch on the other hand, _can_ be pluralized if it is a
> :> : specifically-known _group_ of Sasquatches; if one is referring to homo
> :> : hayashlapiensis in a more general plural, the form is "sasquatch" (w/wo
> :>
> :> you mean they already gave it zoological name?!
>
> : A _crypto_zoological name; academic zoology has of course not recognized
> : its existence.
>
> : There are a couple of versions; I don't think I've got the spelling of
> : the version I posted correctly; but at least one version is based on a
> : latinization of the Chinook for "big foot" - hyas lapee/lapieh. Another
> : is "dahindinensis", after the late Rene Dahinden, one of the big
> : bugger's most ardent pursuers (who never did find one); but I don't
> : think that one uses 'homo' as the genus. I'd have to consult someone
> : else on the details.
>
> well, "homo" is indeed a stretch! any evidence of tool use? :)
>
> : Cryptozoology's named a few things: the Norwegian Sea Serpent - the
> : kind with the loops, horse's head and horns and googly eyes - is serpens
> : noruensis; serpens marinus (marinensis?) is the larger, more snakelike one.
>
> how about Nessie?
FWIR Nessie is believed to be serpens noruensis (the Norwegian Sea Serpent).
Andy Callaway
Gary Vellenzer, speaking about "Re: plural of Bigfoot (was Re: early
cultivated NA apples", told us:
And what's an infant bigfoot called? Bigtoe? Sasquinch?
Andy Callaway - Melbourne, Australia
My web site - http://www.geocities.com/andy_callaway
To email me: http://www.geocities.com/andy_callaway/emailme.html
Mike Cleven
"Bigtoe" is actually a subvariety of Bigfoot once found in Central
Washington state somewhere; it's like a sasquatch but has a big spikey
toenail sticking up out of its Big Toe. Not someone you'd want in a
soccer/footbal match, I guess.....
"Sasquatch" is from a Harrison River Salish dialect and is (in their
spelling system) spelled "sesqac"; but I'm not sure how to make the
diminutive. "Tenas sasquatch" would probably do ("tenas" is "little" in
the the trade language); or "tenas skookoom" (accent on '-koom');
"skookoom" being another word for "bigfoot/sasquatch" (it's similar to a
word now common in local English, "skookum", meaning big, strong etc.
and somewhat similar to "fair dinkum" when used in English).
Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> : Cryptozoology's named a few things: the Norwegian Sea Serpent - the
:> : kind with the loops, horse's head and horns and googly eyes - is serpens
:> : noruensis; serpens marinus (marinensis?) is the larger, more snakelike one.
:>
:> how about Nessie?
: FWIR Nessie is believed to be serpens noruensis (the Norwegian Sea Serpent).
recommend any books (not too fantastic), URL's, periodicals etc. on the
subject? I had read a book "in search of unknown animals" a very long time
ago.
: --
Mike Cleven
I'd have to head back to the Public Library downtown where I borrowed
the books that went into sea serpent lore in detail; there's lots of it,
surprisingly, perhaps having more validity/evidence than other
'cryptozoological' stuff like bigfoot, etc. I'll see what I can dig up;
I used to have lots of notes on this for a book someone was working on
but I'm not sure where they are right now.