The plural form of "Pokemon".

[Sesquipedalian!]

We are indeed all aware it is in fact "Pokemon", however, let us quickly deconstruct and analyze the word.

"Pokemon" is an essential combination of the two separate words "pocket" and "monster". The plural form of "monster" is indeed "monsters". Would this justify the plural form of Pokemon to also be an acceptable "Pokemons", as strange as it may seem?

And, to bring up another irregular plural form, would you believe "Pokemen" to be acceptable in the case of humanoid male Pokemon.

Oh indeed, I am thinking off my cerebral cortex here. Let me keep in mind that the plural form "Pokemon" is canon to both the game and the anime. Would any of you actually prefer using the two aforementioned options instead of the unchanged plural? Or perhaps another plural form?

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

Nope to all; Pokémons sounds silly.

 

[spaekle]

Why, it's 'Pogeymans', of course! :V

 

[Sesquipedalian!]

Why, it's 'Pogeymans', of course! :V

Now, this would bring into another account. Referring to "Pogeymans", the suffix of the word would result in a proper plural form of "Pogeyman" being "Pogeymen". This would apply as strangely to female Pokemon as the title "Mr." would apply to female Mr. Mime.

 

[Zuu]

I refer to them as "Pokemanz".

 

[ultraviolet]

"Pokemon" is an essential combination of the two separate words "pocket" and "monster". The plural form of "monster" is indeed "monsters". Would this justify the plural form of Pokemon to also be an acceptable "Pokemons", as strange as it may seem?

No, because it's the english language and there are exemptions to everything (for example, the plural of deer is deer, but going on what you just said, the plural should be deers, which is silly.).
And I think that considering it's a made up word, it corresponds to its own rules. In fact, the species name for each pokemon is also the plural, so we get 'one starly, two starly'.

And, to bring up another irregular plural form, would you believe "Pokemen" to be acceptable in the case of humanoid male Pokemon.

why would it? you just said yourself that pokemon was a portmaneau of pocket + monster, so why would pokemen be relevant? They aren't men, anyway (however humanoid), they're pokemon, so referring them to men makes no sense at all.

 

[<Joseph: Night SHADE>]

No. As far as I know, the plural of 'monsutaa' is 'monsutaa'; thus with 'Pokémon' being a contraction of 'poketto' and 'monsutaa', the plural is indeed 'Pokémon'.
I find it interesting that each species doesn't change in the plural, but that is also canon except in the very early time of the animé.

 

[hopeandjoy]

Japanese has no plurals and Pokémon combines the Engrish "poketto" and "monsutaa". That's the reason why. It's also the reason why the "e" has an accent mark.

 

[Sesquipedalian!]

No, because it's the english language and there are exemptions to everything (for example, the plural of deer is deer, but going on what you just said, the plural should be deers, which is silly.).
And I think that considering it's a made up word, it corresponds to its own rules. In fact, the species name for each pokemon is also the plural, so we get 'one starly, two starly'.

Possible exemptions; would certain Pokemon, depending on their name, justify themselves as an unchanged plural? Would you think it to be more justified to state "Two Bulbasaur" instead of "Two Bulbasaurs"? Let us go to the root words once more;

Assuming the word "Bulbasaur" derives itself from a portmaneau of "bulb" and "saur", we would indeed know that the plural of the Greek word "saur" is "saurs". If there are exemptions, we can use exemptions through the rules from which these English words for the certain types of Pokemon are used, and find that, linguistically, plurals involving an addition of "s" or otherwise should at least be permitted.

For poketto and monsutaa, it is absolutely justifiable that, in Japanese, there should be no plural form. But if translated to English, we receive the words "pocket" and "monster". We would logically have to pluralize the latter word. "Look at those horrible monster!" would be considered grammatically incorrect. If translated into English, it would have to abide by the rules of the language to at least an extent.

why would it? you just said yourself that pokemon was a portmaneau of pocket + monster, so why would pokemen be relevant? They aren't men, anyway (however humanoid), they're pokemon, so referring them to men makes no sense at all.

General sense of application - though it does not make sense through the root word "Pokemon" it would diverge itself from the characteristics of the said Pokemon in question. Stated before; English holds irregular plurals. Not that I actually support this particular choice in the first place, I simply used it as a notwithstanding alternative that does not make much sense.

Would make much more sense if referring to them as "Pogeymanz" was correct (which it clearly is, no doubt about it).


Still accepting "Pokemon" as the proper plural form, of course. Simply wish to justify any loose points.

 

[ultraviolet]

Assuming the word "Bulbasaur" derives itself from a portmaneau of "bulb" and "saur", we would indeed know that the plural of the Greek word "saur" is "saurs". If there are exemptions, we can use exemptions through the rules from which these English words for the certain types of Pokemon are used, and find that, linguistically, plurals involving an addition of "s" or otherwise should at least be permitted.

Sure, but we're not saying 'bulb' or 'saur', we're saying 'Bulbasaur', which is a made-up word and conforms to conventions that are set up by the creator; canon says that the plural of bulbasaur is bulbasaur, so it is.

For poketto and monsutaa, it is absolutely justifiable that, in Japanese, there should be no plural form. But if translated to English, we receive the words "pocket" and "monster". We would logically have to pluralize the latter word. "Look at those horrible monster!" would be considered grammatically incorrect. If translated into English, it would have to abide by the rules of the language to at least an extent.

Sure, but pokemon is a japanese portmaneau anyway. While it does translate to 'pocket monsters' in english, it's still not an english word, and again it's a made-up one, so it conforms to the conventions set by its creator. Not to mention with the deer example, even if it is translated into english it's still conforming to a convention already set up, even if that is an exemption.

Don't we both agree that 'pokemons' sounds silly and is non-canon?

 

[Storm Earth and Fire]

I use 'Pokemons' if I am trolling or otherwise being silly.

 

[Dragonclaw]

Anything other then 'Pokemon' just sounds like lolspeech to me.

 

[Butterfree]

Why can't "mon" be short for "monsters" just as well as it can be short for "monster"? Maybe it's just because "mon" sounds like a perfectly good plural in Icelandic, if an abstract one, but it doesn't seem that preposterous to me at all.

 

[Sesquipedalian!]

Sure, but we're not saying 'bulb' or 'saur', we're saying 'Bulbasaur', which is a made-up word and conforms to conventions that are set up by the creator; canon says that the plural of bulbasaur is bulbasaur, so it is.

Perfectly agreeable in canon, however I would say the point would be to observe whether these rules would suffice while considering the conformed "canon" irrelevant. Bulbasaur is indeed a sort of made-up word, however it itself can be considered a combination of "bulb" or "saur" if we look at the root words. If we do not follow canon, it would logically be bulbasaur, at least when referring to two of the creatures.

Sure, but pokemon is a japanese portmaneau anyway. While it does translate to 'pocket monsters' in english, it's still not an english word, and again it's a made-up one, so it conforms to the conventions set by its creator. Not to mention with the deer example, even if it is translated into english it's still conforming to a convention already set up, even if that is an exemption.

Many portmanteaus can be considered "made-up words" - blendings of two words into one general word. Usually these portmanteaus, if the words are derived from a proper language in the first place, still abide to the conventional rules of the parent language, usually in the form of describing definition. "pocket", "poketto", "monster", and "monsutaa", from their respective languages, can each be perceived as identical things due to their combined definitions in the portmanteau; they both, linguistically, refer to "monsters" with the assigned defining characteristics of these monsters fitting on a Game Boy screen, of which can - I would assume - fit in one's pocket - or hence the reason why they would be named with "pocket" - resulting in "pocket monsters". These Pocket Monsters, in their portmanteau, form the word "Pokemon", derived however from the conventional rules of their respective languages.

Don't we both agree that 'pokemons' sounds silly and is non-canon?

Oh indeed. I would say the entire point of this is to spark up a lovely debate; I have been craving one for a very long time.

Why can't "mon" be short for "monsters" just as well as it can be short for "monster"? Maybe it's just because "mon" sounds like a perfectly good plural in Icelandic, if an abstract one, but it doesn't seem that preposterous to me at all.

Possible. If the original base word for the portmanteau is indeed "monsters" then I shall applaud you for rationally concluding that "Pokemons" could not be a proper plural in a logical case and shall give you a delicious cookie. If this "monsters" is indeed applicable, then I would conclude the ending of this short debate.