You keep confusing the etymology of the word “yeti” with the actual description given of the mythical creature. Etymology can only give you the origin of the name used. For instance:
(from Wiki)
Please note that, despite the origins of the word, meercats are neither monkeys or cats.
I realize this thread is a bit of a zombie, but I just finished a new book: “Abominable Science” where the authors spend a lot of time and detail in debunking four of the most “popular” cryptids.
They agree, that besides a few attempts at hoaxing, nearly all the “real” sightings of the yeti can be attributed to a bear. (One sighting was clearly a monkey.) They agree that the "Yeti is “real” but just a bear. They totally debunk any idea that the yeti is some sort of ape or anthropoid. ( I need to clarify this as they also state the some part of the Yeti legend is a supernatural myth)
FYI they debunk Bigfoot as almost completely 100% hoax, with a few honest but mistaken sighting of bears, hunters, etc.
Yes. The Native legends for “bigfoot” has a small tribe of tall humans with long hair that use tools, fire, speak, live in caves and villages. Not anthropoid apes or humanoids. A small extinct tribe of watusi tall Amerinds is within possibility.
Bigfoot is 90% hoax, 10% mistaken identity. No real there.