Talk:Zunesha

"Disproportionately long" legs

 * Disproportionate: not proportionate; out of proportion, as in size or number.
 * Proportion: comparative relation between things or magnitudes as to size, quantity, number, etc.; ratio.

This is disproportionate:



Body of normal size, neck and legs too long for the size of the body.

This is NOT disproportionate:



Enormous body, legs equally enormous (as well as trunk, tusks, tail, head, ears, etc, etc).

Zunisha's legs are not "disproportionately long". It's just an enormous elephant with legs proportionately enormous.--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 17:44, December 11, 2015 (UTC)

I assume it says that because he shouldn't be able to walk on water... the leg should reach the bottom of the sea (kinda like this), therefore they are disproportionately long.

We know what disproportianate means, we're not idiots. You just fail to realize that that elephant isn't walking on water, his legs must be much longer than a normal elephant, like Levi pointed out with Dali's painting. 18:05, December 11, 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you are suggesting that we need to see that his legs are long to say it's disproportionate? It's clear as a sky without clouds that his legs are disproportionate because why is he's walking on the ocean floor? How deep do you think the ocean is? It's deep and his legs are long so your argument is invalid

Joekido (talk) 21:48, December 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * Joe, no need to be rude. It's a fair question. The majority opinion is that since the elephant's legs have to reach the bottom of the ocean, although we've only seen the parts of him above water, it's logical that his legs are far longer than is apparent. Hope this helps.


 * 22:26, December 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not even trying to be rude but I apologize, I was giving out a hard logic here, this is how it sounds.


 * Joekido (talk) 22:41, December 11, 2015 (UTC)

Until we learn that Zunisha is actually Elephant Jesus or has abnormally buoyant feet, his legs are disproportionate. 23:03, December 11, 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. Sorry, my computer has a poor screen quality and when I saw the picture I confused the line of clouds on the side of Zunisha with the surface of the sea; hence I thought we were seeing a full body view of the elephant standing on the bottom with half of its body immersed. That's why I also wrote "The skin on the lower part of its body is considerable more wrinkled than that of the upper part, maybe due to being constantly underwater"; which is incorrect too because its body is not actually underwater, just its legs are (and yeah, they must be disproportionately long to reach the bottom). It was until you mentioned something about "walking on water" when I found it strange and rechecked the picture more closely. My apologies for my previous comments, but from my point of view the argument of the disproportionately long legs seemed totally illogical. I'm going to correct the other line too.--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 00:05, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically, we don't know how deep the water is at that location. Maybe the elephant walks a particular route only in shallow waters. I think we should state that we simply don't know how long his legs are. 00:21, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

That's not possible, if the sea was so shallow it wouldn't be even a sea. Even if the see is relatively shallow, it would still make the legs disproportionate. The only case that would change things is if he walks on the water surface, but that's a wild guess without any basis.