Talk:Pumpkaboo (Pokémon)

How do we distinguish the size on the field?

I think this is worthy of trivia, and maybe even in the section of Biology. -Iosue (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

They look bigger/smaller. It's easiest to tell the Super-Sized ones cause they actually have a slightly altered cry and float higher. ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 08:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there are some objective methods to tell by comparing the circle around the Pokémon. By this point, I can only distinguish between a Super Size from a non-Super Size. -Iosue (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Pumpkaboo in Super Size Forme? Super-sized Pumpkaboo? Super Size Pumpkaboo?

This Super Size Pumpkaboo really isn't that grammatic. I don't know, it's not very nice to open up a topic to discuss this but well... So, what are the respective arguments for the naming of this?

• Pumpkaboo in Super Size - Same as Coke in Large Size or Combo B in Extra Large Size
• Pumpkaboo in Super Size Forme - So we treat "Super Size" as a special name for its forme. Consistently, we should say something like Floette in Red Flower Forme if needs be
• Super-sized Pumpkaboo - Super Size is converted into an adjective and put in front of the noun
• Super Size Pumpkaboo - Simply stack the nouns like you don't care about grammar. We will have some Sandy Cloak Wormadam, Blade Forme Aegislash or La Reine Trim Furfrou
• Pumpkaboo (Super Size) - Just avoid everything by conveniently putting up brackets

I don't know about stacking up two to three consecutive nouns in English. I don't recall other European languages that allow it (except terms like King William the Conqueror, where King, William and the Conqueror are all representing the same object; Super, Size and Pumpkaboo don't seem to be the same case). If this is really how English works, why do we need adjectives in the first place? -Iosue (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Supplimentary: Spiky-eared Pichu is named Spiky-eared Pichu instead of "Spiky Ear Pichu" or "Spike Ear Pichu". There comes a reason we convert the words into an adjective before putting in front of a noun. -Iosue (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"Super Size Pumpkaboo" is fine and probably best. "Super-sized" could suggest it underwent a super-sizing process, which does not seem to be the case. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And the argument that supports this claim? I don't know but Spiky-eared Pichu doesn't seem to have undergone some spiky-earing process. Besides, what is a "super-sizing process"? To enlarge? Then we have better terms like "Enlarged Pumpkaboo", which suggests an action of enlargement, because "enlarge" is a valid verb. But "super-size" doesn't seem like a meaningful verb for me. -Iosue (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the overwhelmingly widespread general usage for forms in the Pokémon fandom is exactly the same as the examples you gave in your objection to Super Size Pumpkaboo. See, for example, the captions under the main template images for Wormadam or Cherrim. See also the form name formatting on Veekun (which abbreviates to "Super Pumpkaboo") or Smogon (which uses both "Super Size Gourgeist" and "Gourgeist-H" in its analysis). Like it or not, part of being an encyclopedia is cataloging how things are normally used, even if that's not technically grammatically correct. (Side note: Spiky-eared Pichu is named that because "Spiky-eared Pichu" is the canonical name of the form, not because anybody in the fandom decided to "convert" it into an adjective. "Spiky Ear" or "Spike Ear" are just plain non-canonical.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Supersize, as a verb. It's definitely got a meaning plenty familiar to many. The issue (as I understood it at least) wasn't about using a different word like "enlarged", anyway, it was just about "Super Size".

"Best" means the other options are worse... Super-sized because of the verb connotation, "in..." because they're clunky, and parentheses because they should be reserved for parentheticals (i.e., information that can be skipped).

I'm not really sure why "Super Size Pumpkaboo" is necessarily ungrammatical, anyway. It's fine as far as I'm concerned. Whether this is because of other things like Sandy Cloak Wormadam as Pumpkinking mentions or my own (personal) more general English sense I don't really know or care for the moment. The short of it is, I just don't see/feel anything wrong with it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the canon only suggests "Super Size" and "Pumpkaboo". It did not suggest the exact term "Super Size Pumpkaboo". The Spiky-eared Pichu is canonical and grammatical, which is probably because there became a need to put them together in a single sentence. If there haven't been a chance for both terms to appear in a single sentence in the canonical material, it becomes our job to put the terms in a comprehensive way, which Veekun and Smogon have independently attempted. If they are free to manipulate the canonical material, why would Bulbapedia be otherwise? If we are free to do so, we are free to work on Super Size and Pumpkaboo independently regardless of how they do. As far as I am concerned, "Super Size Pumpkaboo" is not grammatical becaues Size is not an adjective, while Super is. "Super Size Pumpkaboo" can only mean two things grammatically: A "Size Pumpkaboo" that is described as "Super" or a "Super Size" which is also a "Pumpkaboo"*. I don't think either way is grammatically meaningful. This particular convention can lead to many other possibilities when used widely. The Sandy Cloak Wormadam and the La Reine Trim Furfrou are simply illustrations. -Iosue (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

1) In "Super Size", "Super" modifies "Size" forming a noun phrase which modifies "Pumpkaboo". Your construction of "Size" alone modifying "Pumpkaboo" is very odd at best. (As a native English speaker, I do not know how anyone would make that assumption.)

2) Your main claim appears to be that only adjectives can modify nouns. Wikipedia would disagree: "In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns". Examples include "work pants" and "chicken soup". Therefore, you are wrong that it cannot be grammatical just because "Size" is not an adjective.

Chicken soup is soup of a chicken (to be very loose), Super Size Pumpkaboo is Pumpkaboo of a Super Size. I see absolutely no problem with this construction. IMO it is much cleaner than "Pumpkaboo in Super Size". Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

1. If Size is followed by a verb or other parts of speech, then it will be certain that Super modifies Size. In English, there isn't such a rule to dictate that words are grouped up first by this. If such a rule is to exist, "Hot chicken soup" will mean the soup is made of a hot chicken but not a soup made of a chicken and the soup is hot. If Super Size Pumpkaboo is semantically Adjective + Noun + Noun while hot chicken soup is as well, this rule will not make sense when compared.
2. The article in Wikipedia you just quoted only agrees with very a limited usage on two nouns being stacked together. Particularly, this only tells of an observable phenomenon that is described as "often" and "may". None of the three usages apply to Super Size Pumpkaboo and all came from certain historical reasons*. Besides, the article doesn't say anything about stacking another adjective in front of the two nouns. If two nouns added together becomes an atomic noun-unit, for which the article in Wikipedia describes, then adding an adjective should modify the whole unit instead of just the first word of, to quote your words, the "noun phrase". You'd not want to interpret a "fierce man eater" as an eater who only eats "fierce men". Instead, you'd want to believe it is a man eater and it is fierce. Why should this rule apply here but not there, grammatically? -Iosue (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You're not stacking adjective + noun + noun. Super Size is a single proper noun referring to the form and cannot semantically be broken into separate parts without making it non-canonical. It's just proper noun + proper noun. The best parallel I can think of would be the title Lord Mayor, which is similarly a noun (Super Size and lord) that clarifies what type of another noun (Pumpkaboo and mayor) is being discussed. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Lord Mayor actually follows an earlier example I gave. King William the Conqueror is a good example of this doing. Because the King = William = the Conqueror. Lord Mayor is simply another example of this: the Lord = the Mayor. You can actually stack more nouns at the tail and have it go on, like, fictionally, King Rufus the great, son of John, savior of the realm, protector of the people and on and on. Similarly, when we call our king or queen, we say "my king your majesty", which is also another case of nouns stacking together while each of the units is exactly referring to the same person. Besides, for this kind of breaking down canonical stuff you just mentioned, I think that they should be referred to as "The/A Pumpkaboo" and "The Super Size". So I don't think the article and the noun can be broken down unless you are putting an adjective in between them. So, a most canonical way to put would be like "The/A Pumpkaboo the Super Size". But that doesn't even make sense. -Iosue (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Adj + Noun + Noun can resolve to either Adj + NP or NP + Noun. I find it absurd that you suggest it must resolve one way, period...

"Man eater" and "Super Size" are identifiable noun phrases, meaning - without very good reason otherwise - you don't split them up when you try to parse them. That you are trying to to me suggests some flaw in your process, though I am not able (or else greatly inclined) to identify it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I know how it sounds. I am always trying to be as senseless as possible when I work with grammar. I only apply objective rules without caring about the meaning. This will be mostly unbiased if we only do it like a machine. If you think that Adj + N + N can resolve into Adj + NP or NP + N, then what are the criteria? Do we apply it by common sense or by identifiable grammatical structure? When things get ambiguous, what lines do we draw? All these nonsense can be resolved by adding a small hyphen in our language but it seems for some reasons people are reluctant to do so. They did not add a hyphen because Super is a good adjective for Size. I don't think they would ever imagine people are simply stacking the terms up. For the instance that they stacked those terms up, they did it with a hyphen and also a conversion to an adjective. If they are to put Super Size and Pumpkaboo together, they'd have done it just the way I described, although I have no way to prove. -Iosue (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Lads, take a look at this: Form_differences#Pumpkaboo_and_Gourgeist.

Pumpkaboo and Gourgeist can be of Small, Average, Large and Super Size.

All these lines are authored by different people and so there ought to be minor differences. So it appears that this author used "This Pumpkaboo is of Super Size." instead of "This Pumpkaboo is Super Size." Also, a while ago, one of my edit was reverted and remarked "It can't be 'in' its Size. It's not a form it can be made into; it simply is." I would never think that something can be equal to the size it has. Usually, we say "something has a small size" or "something in the small size", and occasionally "something of small size". Maybe, we grow up with a different kind of English. What in your kind of English say about this? -Iosue (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion that "in its Size" is a very odd and grammatically perplexing way of saying it. I would say that "has a small size" and "is of small size" are correct English constructions of the common words "small size" — but those common words are not interchangeable with the proper-noun form name Small Size. If you insist on putting the form name after the Pokemon name, I would opt for "a Pumpkaboo of the Small Size variation" or "in its Small Size form," or even (in casual usage) "of Small Size," as the Form differences article you cited says. But I still maintain that "(form name) (Pokemon name)" is an equally acceptable construction for all forms of all Pokemon, and since it's terser, it's the one we should be using on most occasions. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hidden Ability exclusive to Average size?

The page claims that you can only have the Hidden Ability Insomnia on an Average Size Pumpkaboo, but breeding a male with Insomnia with a Ditto can cause the offspring to have the ability, but will itmnot also be off a different size, as there is no female to determine the size? TurtleLover1999 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In the case of a Pokémon with multiple forms breeding with Ditto, the form of that Pokémon will determine the form of the offspring. --SnorlaxMonster 13:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)