96
edits
Talk:Pumpkaboo (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
m
→Pumpkaboo in Super Size Forme? Super-sized Pumpkaboo? Super Size Pumpkaboo?
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:2) Your main claim appears to be that only adjectives can modify nouns. {{wp|Adjective#Other noun modifiers|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. | :2) Your main claim appears to be that only adjectives can modify nouns. {{wp|Adjective#Other noun modifiers|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". [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 19:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | :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". [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 19:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
# 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. | |||
# The article in Wikipedia you just quoted only agrees with very a limited usage on two nouns being stacked together. Particularly, {{tt|this|In plain English, the modifier often indicates origin (Virginia reel), purpose (work clothes), or semantic patient (man eater), however, it may generally indicate almost any semantic relationship.}} 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{{tt|*|Speculations: For origins, it could be because of the difficulty in creating adjectives from name of places when names not from Germanic or Romantic origins are added into English. For purposes, it is very probable that it came with an apostrophe-s, like soldier's armour, at the beginning and somehow people disliked the gentive writing, there was an instance people made King's Road become Kings Road. For semantic patients, it is possible that when English was still old, objects in the accusative case are spelt differently. That holds true even today for our personal pronouns (it'd be a me-hater instead of an I-hater if it happens to be).}}. 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? -[[User:Iosue|Iosue]] ([[User talk:Iosue|talk]]) 20:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||