One question I am asked over and over again by people is “What is the plural form of ‘Bigfoot?'” Most people want to say “Bigfeet” or “Sasquatches,” but both of those are incorrect. And a lot of people don’t believe me when I say that the plural form is the same as the singular. You can spot a Bigfoot, or a whole family of Bigfoot. Just like you can see one sheep, or a whole family of sheep. But for those of you who still don’t believe me, or understand why this is, cryptozoology authority Loren Coleman just posted an extensive article explaining why this is over on his Cryptomundo site:
I penned some remarks on this subject five years ago. It appears to be time to have it resurface, recombined, as some people are beginning again to lose track of what the big hairy gals and guys have traditionally been called.
The late Kelly McGillis of Canada once asked me on a yahoolist, “What is the plural of Sasquatch?”
To which I replied:
“The plural and singular of Sasquatch and Bigfoot are Sasquatch and Bigfoot.
“More than one Abominable Snowman and Yeti are Abominable Snowmen and Yetis.”
Please avoid letting me hear “Sasquatches”!
No, no, no “Bigfeet” allowed in here.
Some nouns, particularly the names of animals and fish, have the same form in singular and plural. Historically and grammatically correct is the word “Bigfoot” for singular and plural, just as “sheep” means one sheep and two or more sheep.
There are a number of animals that have the same singular and plural form, for example:
antelope – antelope
buffalo – buffalo
bison – bison
mink – mink
otter – otter
bass – bass
deer – deer
moose – moose
swine – swine
pike – pike
trout – trout
goldfish – goldfish
species – species
sheep – sheep
The article goes into great detail explaining when and why plural or singular forms are used for different cryptids. It’s a great resource for anyone writing articles on unknown monsters and needs to know what form to use.