Bigfoots or Bigfeet??
Or How In The Heck Do You Pluralize Bigfoot???
By Michael Willey
English is generally a wonderful language. If you want to make a word plural, most times you just add an "s" or an "es" to the end of that word and, viola!, you have a plural word. Hence, "boat" becomes "boats;" "catch" becomes "catches." It even works with some other names for Bigfoot. "Sasquatch" becomes "sasquatches;" "skunk ape" becomes skunk apes." Even if you have to replace a "y" with an "ies," pluralization is generally pretty easy.
But, then, along comes a word like Bigfoot. How in the heck is a person supposed to pluralize a word like Bigfoot??? The fine folks on Finding Bigfoot use "Bigfoots" as the plural of Bigfoot. With all due respect, that's just plain ungrammatical. The plural of "foot" is "feet" regardless of whether you are talking about a unit of measure or an actual foot. However, "Bigfeet" just sounds silly. So, how in the heck are we supposed to pluralize Bigfoot? None of the rules apply, right?
Well, not so fast. In the English language, there are invariant nouns. "What are those?" you ask breathlessly. Well, invariant nouns are nouns that don't change when pluralized. We all know a few, we may just never have heard the term before. The plural form of "moose" is not "meese;" it is "moose." "Moose" is an invariant noun; it is both singular and plural. So is "sheep" and "deer." There are others, but you get the idea.
Therefore, I propose that we treat "Bigfoot" as an invariant noun. Whether you are talking about one Bigfoot or seventeen Bigfoot, the spelling and pronunciation should not change.
Feel free to disagree with me and pluralize "Bigfoot" however you would like. Maybe make "sasquatches" the plural of Bigfoot. As in, "Hey, buddy! Did you see a Bigfoot?" Answer: "I saw seven sasquatches!" However, if you choose to use "Bigfoots" in my presence, I may have to correct your grammar. If you use "Bigfeet," I may start laughing.
Top of Page