>>11827933Yes, I am familiar with the
Sylveon = Sylph
But I have one problem with that theory, and that is phonetics.
It is known that in English, Y and I are basically interchangeable. So Silveon and Sylveon are phonetically the same, the Y in my opinion gives it a mere 'exotic' stylistic effect. Now we move onto the 'ph' sound.
Ph = (voiceless labiodental fricative)
V = (voiced labiodental fricative)
Although these two sounds are almost identical, they're different by their manner of articulation (V is voiced, therefore the glottis is opened and the vocal chords vibrates)
Now, one could argue on a phonological level that these two sounds could be interchangeable and that if you replace one with the other, you will not alter the meaning (think sat and 'z'at, although the latter is pronounced differently, you can still understand what it means, unlike pat and sat.)
Well, now lets use this with Sylveon and Sylpheon. Why didn't they use the latter if they indeed wanted to convey the idea of the mythological sylphs?
The main point I'm addressing here is that there is an explicit 'V' there, and it's intentional, they could have put 'ph' but they didn't, so there is a reason.
If we dissect the word, we get:
Slyv + eon (typical of the Eevees)
to me: Slyv = Silv = Silva?
I mention bug because grass is already associated with Leafeon and bug is the only other type I can attribute Sylveon to, taking into account this logic.
