Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The topic states "what should a group of bigfoot be called?" I answer with Sasquattle and then I get a grammar lesson? I'm sorry if I came across as giving a lesson. That wasn't my intention. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page with naming the "group", as opposed to pluralizing sasquatch/bigfoot. Sorry again... Next time I'll put more effort in to my explanatory first post and title. Hopefully that way the chance of offending people diminishes. Finally, I'm going to add "a Sasquattle of Sasquatch", because you are so adamant and others have supported you, to the next poll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 How about a slew of Sasquatch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'll suggest a "group" of Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I think it should be a rumble of sasquatch... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Boolywooger Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 A horde of hairy men A crypt of cryptids A phantasm of hairy folk a knock of Bigfoot a triumph of treepeekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 BIGFOOTS As the Term Bigfoot has become the Name of the Species. Its not about Feet, body parts, but about a group of induviduals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 BIGFOOTS As the Term Bigfoot has become the Name of the Species. Its not about Feet, body parts, but about a group of induviduals. Thanks for pluralizing Bigfoot by adding an 's' to the end. Now what do you think we should name the group itself? For example, a murder of crows, the group itself is named a murder, and crow is pluralized with an 's'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Here's your answer. http://beetlebailey.com/comics/september-22-2012/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Well, this Thread has reached 2000 views, and the original Poll has received 200 votes. The clear winner by a landslide is a "none of the above" of Bigfoot (just kidding), and the runner up is a tie between: a Blurry of Bigfoot, and a Bunch of Boogers (not surprisingly) Due to "none of the above" winning the original poll, and to the numerous suggestions for the following: a Troop of Sasquatch a Family of Bigfoot a Crew of Sasquatch a Sasquattle of Bigfoot a Revised Poll has been created. Please continue to Vote. Revised Poll Link: http://poll.pollcode.com/wh5nu4 Edited October 9, 2012 by Mounty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 a Clan would be suitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 A Hoax of Sasquach is a good candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Oh, you are trying to pluralize Sasquatch as opposed to Sasquatches/Bigfoots/Bigfeet. I understand you now. However, this thread is not for pluralizing the names we already have, but to find a new name for the actual "group" itself. For example, more than one bird is pluralized as "birds", but the name of the group of birds is a "flock". Understand? In my personal opinion, for what its worth, the pluralized form of Bigfoot/Sasquatch should just be Bigfoot/Sasquatch, not unlike the pluralized form of Deer or Fish. And not unlike the pluralized form of Deer or Fish, Bigfoots/Bigfeet/Sasquatches should be reserved for when there is more than one Bigfoot/Sasquatch of different species or subspecies (if that exists). Or maybe this is when Sasquattle could be the appropriate term; Sasquattle being the all encompassing term for all the genre of subspecies. If that exists. Personally, I disagree, but I'm just one man. Couldn't agree more.. Until more is understood, defined and moreover thoroughly documented, keeping descriptions & definitions simple, utilizing language we already have until scientific data tells us to add a new definition to the dictionary. Attempts to apply new terms early is a huge distraction to where otherwise productive thoughts and discussions could and should exist. As Mounty states "not to pluralizing the names we already have, but to find a new name for the actual "group" itself. That is done thru solid ground work focusing on the literal proven existence of "IT", And..not until possibly there after might we be forced to redefine a new plural of "IT" as a "Group", a "Team", of "Bigfeet" is not enough.. Apologies if I'm misquoting you Monty.. Sorry to be so critical.. Man I sound uptight.. With that, I do like a good joke somewhere in the middle every now and then to keep it real and light. Further more, I could just not read these posts, go to another section and mind my own activity.. Like the O'l saying "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". Forums are for open conversations like this, thus I feel like such a hypocrite. So with that I do apologise, but this kind of stuff drives me BANANAS!.. Edited October 15, 2012 by St.Croix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Thanks for pluralizing Bigfoot by adding an 's' to the end. Now what do you think we should name the group itself? For example, a murder of crows, the group itself is named a murder, and crow is pluralized with an 's'. In this case obviously "a group of Bigfoots". "Group" because we cannot aply any social relation to them until we know how the socialize. Maybe in some cases there might be an indication that its a family but even that is questionably distinguishable without more knowledge of their way of life. If we knew that they hunt in pack we might associate that knowledge to a certain group description. But we dont know, at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 mobsquatch brotherhood of the foot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) Most important is relation to other primate types, intelligence of the mammal deserves a more unique name. If they have a spoken language, this brings another level of names. For example, Clan of Sasquatch's Female = Matriarch, Queen Male = Master, Stud, Prowler or Rogue (since we do not know if the males roam, or stay with a partner for life). Juveniles(plural) = Crue or Kid (singular) Young = Booger(s) since Im a Booger in rank. I thought it was fitting. infants = ? Infants If language and organization or a large group of two or more adult females and equal males (maybe) Community / Family of Sasquatch Female = Queen, Omega Male = Alpha Juveniles = squad, or kids infants = Infants I think I said Clan earlier as I was thinking of some video games and the kids form clans. just rambling Edited October 19, 2012 by BadVooDoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts