I’ve always thought their reasoning for Dark and Ghost was something along those lines, yeah.  I didn’t originally tie Bug in with that, but it becomes pretty clear when you look at the ability ‘Rattled.’  As for the meaning of all those types… well, there are only a few that I associate with more abstract ideas like that (definitions for Fire, Water, Grass and so forth are really quite straightforward).  I sort of think that, if more types were defined in that kind of way, there’d be a lot more freedom in designing new Pokémon, because you can tie a Pokémon’s element to its personality rather than its specific powers.  Still, here are a few:

Fighting – ‘honour’ is part of it, but I don’t think it covers all Fighting-types; I think that Fighting Pokémon are the ones who are most like humans in their attitude to combat.  They’re the most likely to fight for a cause, the most likely to consider fighting a skill worthy of exaltation, and the most likely to spend a lot of time training.  Some, like Poliwrath, are more about athletics than combat, but they still have a more human than animal view.

Ghost – I think that a lot of Ghost Pokémon aren’t actually ghosts per se.  Some clearly are, but I believe most of them simply have the name because they have powers related to death, the dead, and fear of death.

Dark – Dark is tricky, because there is something of an instinct that it should represent actual physical darkness, and Umbreon (one of the only five Dark Pokémon who existed in Gold and Silver) is very strongly associated with the moon and the night, the way Espeon is connected with the day.  These characteristics aren’t actually shared by most Dark-types, though.  The Japanese name literally translates to “evil type” and that’s the unifying theme of it: Dark Pokémon have abilities related to treachery, malice, fear, and brutality.  This is not to say that they are universally evil – but they are pragmatic, and likely to use methods we might associate with evil.

Dragon – Back in Gold and Silver, one of Clair’s gym trainers described Dragon-types as “Pokémon that are overflowing with life energy” (or words to that effect) and that’s the definition I’ve used since then.  Dragon-types aren’t necessarily connected with any one cultural stereotype of what constitutes a ‘dragon’ (just look at Altaria, Kingdra, Vibrava, and Shelgon).  They are what they are because they have a special connection to some sort of ‘life force’ (which, I will remind you, is a very real thing in the Pokémon universe), and this is the source of their spectacular powers, incredible vitality and long lives.

Does all that sound reasonable?  I’m sorry I don’t quite have what you asked for, but for most types it really is a lot simpler than this!  There are definitely ways you could shift some other types in that direction, though – associating each Psychic Pokémon with an aspect of the human mind, for instance, or broadening the associations for Fire (which, at present, normally has only connotations of speed and destruction) to include warmth, nurturing, creativity, and passion.

You mean, like, at Game Freak?

Um… good question.

They definitely seem to have a lot of stock ideas, like there’s always a comparatively useless Normal-type based on a small omnivorous mammal, and there’s always a comparatively useless (except Staraptor) Normal/Flying-type based on a generic bird, and there’s often a cute little Electric rodent thingy, and so on… and I guess for those it’s sort of a paint-by-numbers thing, which makes me suspect they have a target number of new Pokémon they want to release in a generation and don’t much care how they get there.  Not that they don’t still have awesome ideas too, of course.

I think sometimes they just go to the zoo or whatever and chill until they see something awesome.  Or read obscure zoology textbooks.  Honestly that seems to me like as good a way as any.  ‘Truth is stranger than fiction,’ so they say, and nowhere is that more the case than in animal biology.  On that note, I find it bizarre that they have yet to concoct a platypus Pokémon (though I suppose one of the stranger things about the platypus is that it lays eggs, which is standard for Pokémon).

Other times they go delving into Japanese folklore, and in my opinion that’s where some of the most fascinating and quirky designs come from.  Whereas designs based on bizarre real animals have the undeniable charm of being weirder than anything a human mind could invent, designs based on folklore have a certain timeless quality to them – myths and monsters persist for a reason; they resonate with certain aspects of our psychology, and when you have such powerful ideas available, why not work with them?  It helps, naturally, that Japan has a long-standing cultural fascination with describing and categorising the otherworldly (which, of course, was one of the major influences on Pokémon from the start).

See, I actually don’t have huge problems with the way Game Freak go about creating new Pokémon.  I think in many ways they’ve got it absolutely right.  I just wouldn’t do as much of it.  I have something of a ‘less is more’ approach to the whole thing.  Given the choice, I would rather do more work with an existing Pokémon and use it to tell more stories than create an all-new one that serves essentially the same purpose.  I also think that a lot of Pokémon would benefit greatly from the added attention.  There are a great many fifth-generation Pokémon that, in my opinion, came so close to getting the whole thing fantastically right – Darmanitan, Braviary, Cryogonal, Heatmor – and it really does pain me that the designers wasted their time on blatant filler like Watchog, Basculin, Unfezant and Emolga when they could have spent it really thinking about some of those others.  I think we have enough Pokémon now that we don’t actually need another 100+ in every generation – I would totally be happy with 30 or 40 if they were all as well-done as, say, Chandelure.

As you might have gathered from that last paragraph, my entries from last year have rather a lot on my thoughts about this if you want more; I hope I’ve managed to explain the main salient points, though.

If there’s one thing I want more of, it’s myth- and folklore-inspired Pokémon.  They are The Best Ones.  I don’t even care whether we’re talking about Japanese stuff, or wider Asian stuff, or anywhere else.  I think one of the designers has said that there have been no Pokémon so far who are based on Greco-Roman mythology, which is the particular cultural milieu I’m interested in (though there are definitely some who are based on ideas that have Greco-Roman counterparts).  I would like to see some of that.  Again, though, it’s all good.  Myths and folktales last for a reason; they express powerful, evocative ideas.  Designs based on them have a certain inexpressible dignity… or, so I feel.

(Incidentally: at my university there is a long-standing rivalry between the Egyptian historians and the Greco-Roman historians, but I must still concede that Lucario is beyond epic)

So, in a word: Yes.

Well, I would certainly prefer that.  And I think Samurott would work as a Water/Fighting dual-type.  Would Emboar still make sense as a straight Fire-type?  Maybe?  Might need to be redesigned a bit.