Well, regardless of what those names are derivative of — they're still made-up. It doesn't make them any more "real" words than "Zolom" is. That was my main point with that bit you quoted.
If we're going to play that game :
X, you know as well as I that ALL words are made up. That's how language works.
However, there is a distinction between making a new word that is derivative to another that already exists, and making one up from nothing.
If you want to be pedantic about the way I phrased myself, sure, be my guest, but the point remains the same, and that criticism does not address that point.
Also, I have a REALLY hard time believing that
Nerosuferoth (ネロスフェロス) is at ALL derivative of Nosferatu (ノスフェラトゥ), especially given that it's a little heat-attacking bird lizard creature that bears zero resemblance to a Vampire, and the katakana versions of those words aren't similar at all.
It's face and pointy ears does make it look like Nosferatu though, and granted the name similarity as well, that's one reasonable connection.
It's a minor point in either case, if I missed at one of the ones I gave you, and a pointless exercise to narrow your focus to one of them.
The point still stands - there is little to suggest that the FFVII team chose enemy names at random just because it sounded cool, and it's more likely based on all the ones we can identify, that the ones we can't are simply difficult to find because we lack the historical or cultural knowledge to recognize them.
To answer your question, "Zolom" very clearly derivative of the Japanese Katakana-ization of "Midgardsormr". Once you take out the "Midgar" bit, you're left with "ズオルム" (Zu-o-ru-mu). Just because it's not directly taking apart the word the way that the original language does doesn't make it any less valid as a derivative fantasy creature name.
It's very clearly an error of translation.
You can say that it's derication of Japanese katakana, but that's not an answer to my question. Clearly you can make any derivations you want from a word and turn it into another.
My question re-phrased is "what actual word is "Zolom" acting as a substitute for?".
In this case it would be "orm" now wouldn't it. But Zolom is so far removed from "orm" as to be completely unrecognizable, so it has retained non of its lineage connotation.
The term "Midgar Zolom"'s only saving grace in this regard is that it has "Midgar" in it.
For example: It's not really any different than pulling "Godzilla" out of "ゴジラ" (Gojira) which itself comes from a hybridization of the Japanese words for Gorilla and Whale. The English version doesn't bear ANY resemblance to the origins of the name's hybridization, but instead has only a loose (arguably lazy) similarity to the Katakana pronunciation — but that's still perfectly fine, because it's a name of a fantasy creature.
Have fun fighting that windmill Don Quijote.
Do I really have to remind you that I ended my last post with this :
But, it's a personal preference thing. I'm not saying they shouldn't use "Zolom" out of dogmatism for the "100% correct nature of FFVII as it was in Japanese", but simply out of personal preference for naming conventions that don't resort to original, but meaningless combinations of letters.
You can maybe make an argument about quality, but what really matters with the name of a fantastic creature is whether or not the same sounds good and if it's memorable,
I'm not really making that argument - I made a statement of personal preference.
That being said :
and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Midgar Zolom doesn't meet those criteria.
I don't agree. I don't think Midgar Zolom is a memorable and good sounding name. I think it's because Midgar Zolom itself as a creature is so memorable, and you're accustomed to the name that represents it, that you're tied to the name.
If the Midgar Zolom had been named the "Shavelanks of Dappelcrab", you'd still be making this argument right now.
My personal take on names is that they only matter as much as their meaning, and in that sense, the only quality I think it's meaningful to speak of is how, for the lack of a better word, "clever" they are.
After all, words are just sounds we use to express meaning. And when those sounds don't have a particular meaning anymore, they are interchangeable and indistinguishable.
That's why a creature whose name acts as a clear parallel to other established fantastical creatures, or real creatures, work so much better than a random ensemble of letters and sounds.
Now, I'm being pedantic here, because obvious the root of "Midgar Zolom" is recognize-able
in light of the creature it is used for.
That being said, I think "Midgar's wyrm/worm/snake/adder/etc." is better in this context because that's a name you'll recognize even if you haven't actually seen the snake, or had it described to you.
Whilst someone telling a person who hasn't seen or heard of it before "Beware of the Midgar Zolom", tells them absolutely nothing.
But again - this is just a matter of taste in either case.
I am not arguing here that using the more symbolically clear word is superior in some objective way -
just that I prefer it that way.
