Based on the fact that the plural of 'watch' is 'watches', I'd say the first option is correct. However, the plural of 'fish' can either be 'fishes' or just 'fish', so 'sasquatch' is equally potentially permissable as a plural. Strange thing to be thinking about! :)
I'm pretty strange too. I just looked up Sasquatch in the Concise OED and it does not list a plural. Interesingly the plural of 'octopus' is NOT 'octopi' as some people believe, but 'octopuses'. However, as the word originally came from ancient Greek, the Greek plural form of 'octopodes' is still occasionally used and is perfectly acceptable
Well, I remember having a chat with someone at uni about something similar. We said that as there was only one Pegasus, there would be no need for a plural, so maybe there is only one Sasquatch? (Likewise Jesus, but that's actually quite a common name in Hispanic countries). Hehe, the octopi thing was on QI. I'm not sure if they said whether the plural of hippopotomus is actually hippopotomi or not. Sadly I don't have any form of the OED, I use my pocket dictionary from WHSmiths :)
Comments 4
Reply
Indeed, although it works, as I am strange too!
Reply
Reply
Hehe, the octopi thing was on QI. I'm not sure if they said whether the plural of hippopotomus is actually hippopotomi or not.
Sadly I don't have any form of the OED, I use my pocket dictionary from WHSmiths :)
Reply
Leave a comment