I swear that million was there when I searched it a few hours ago. I checked that number several times when I saw it just to make sure. I don't know why it's missing now.
Platypode may be de rigour in some places however come to Australia and start talking about platypode or platypi to animal and zoo people and they will think you ignorant, pretentious, or stupid or all three. Only thing is unlike me they probably will be too polite to say so.
Another thing is that here it is common to use "platypus" as both the singular and plural, and there is no way on Google to measure how often "platypus" is used as the plural.
"That doesn't necessarily mean people should write like that in their job applications" - Why is that? Because they will be thought ignorant? Is the above really how kids are taught English in schools these days? Back in my day we were actually taught how to spell and use English correctly. Is the fashion now for the teachers to just say "well, little Timmy, you may be as dumb as a bag of hammers and not know a verb from a noun, but you get an A+ because in the future everyone will be as dumb as you are"?
I can't speak as to how it's taught, but I have observed slang terms and made up words are increasingly prevalent in spoken English, especially among the younger population. Written English is suffering mainly from punctuation and grammar issues. I think texting in particular has undermined proper form; indeed it is almost expected now for no capitals or punctuation to be used in normal texting. The addition of either often is taken as emphasis. However, as a bad grade is often now considered the teacher's fault here in the states, learning is often suffering from lack of effort by the student. The lack of effort is also becoming evident on the job front, as the younger generations are coming in feeling entitled but not wanting to do real work. Before long your 'teacher quote' may be somewhat of a reality here, which is sad.
Broadly speaking, yes. Nay, of course not. Teachest'rs teachest grammar which is c'rrect acc'rding to the standards of the timeth. T doth take much longeth'r f'r those changes to beest did accept in writ f'rm than t doest in casual speech. Jonathan Swift makes a very similar point here: “From the Civil War to this present Time, I am apt to doubt whether the Corruptions in our Language have not at least equalled the Refinements of it … most of the Books we see now a-days, are full of those Manglings and Abbreviations. Instances of this Abuse are innumerable: What does Your Lordship think of the Words, Drudg’d, Disturb’d, Rebuk’t, Fledg’d, and a thousand others, every where to be met in Prose as well as Verse?”
The word "a" got 25,270,000,000 results. "The" and "and" did as well. That's probably close enough to a zillion.
How difficult is it to understand that a word comes from a certain origin, and if you were speaking that language, a certain plural would also be correct? Like Hungarian dog breeds - Vizslas, Pulis, etc is fine in English speaking countries and most common, but given they're Hungarian in origin, Vizslak, Pulik, etc is also correct. Words can have multiple plural forms.
My whole point is that platypus is not a Greek word. It is a word artifically constructed from two words from ancient Greek, latinised, and then further used as an English word. It is either a genus - which cannot be pluralised - or it is the common name in English. Adding "-i" or "-podes" as a pluralisation is bastardising it even further. One could argue (as FunkyGibbon would) that that is perfectly fine if those are the common forms, but one can't really argue effectively that "-podes" is correct because "platypus" is a Greek word. Your comparison to Hungarian dog breeds is not an apt one. There are, apparently, over 150,000 words in English which derive from ancient Greek. I'd be interested in how many of them you would argue should be pluralised "as Greek".
It's the greek word platupous. Even wikipedia says it's a possible plural form. I have never said it's the correct form, but it is one of the possible forms.
We'd probably need someone who actually is a scholar in ancient Greek to be able to say whether it was really a word or if it is a construct - you'll find that most generic names constructed from ancient Greek and then latinised will also be given an etymology in dictionaries (both online and not) as if that construct was taken directly from an ancient Greek word - Ornithorhynchus is a related example. I'm still interested in why someone would think that platypus should be pluralised as -podes "because it's Greek" but disregard the same argument for hundreds of other common English words which derive from ancient Greek but are not pluralised as if they were actual Greek words.