Talk:*
Add topicInstant Messages
[edit]When instant-messaging, an asterisk is often used to correct a typo.
Should this be included?
For example:
(15:18) Gambler_Justice: Just google i
(15:18) Gambler_Justice: it*
Gambler Justice 08:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, good point. :-) —RuakhTALK 18:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
*facepalm*
[edit]Can it also be used like in the example I've shown in this sections header? :) 92.40.234.82 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it would indicate an action or a property instead of something being said. As in many memes like:
- Men: *exist*
- Feminists: *get triggered*
- or
- Country: *has got oil*
- America: You guys need freedom!
- or
- anyone:*says something stupid*
- me:*facepalm*
- Kinda like this anyway. I don’t know how to define it completely though.Jonteemil (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- That’s our current sense 8 under ‘punctuation mark’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense: “(derogatory) Former U.S. president George W. Bush”. --2001:16A2:4DF6:1000:918:D979:FA37:288E 15:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bush 43 was represented by a large asterisk in the Doonesbury comic strip, first under a hat, later under a Roman helmet (see this panel). I don’t think this counts as lexical, but theoretically Doonesbury fans could have used this representation textually. If so, I’m not aware of it. --Lambiam 20:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've occasionally seen this usage on the Internet. I could find it on (mentioned, not used) on this page and this page. The thing is, it's very hard to search for a character like an asterisk as a search term on sites like Google or Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- There are some search engines that don't drop special characters, like symbolhound, but I haven't spotted any uses via them. - -sche (discuss) 23:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've occasionally seen this usage on the Internet. I could find it on (mentioned, not used) on this page and this page. The thing is, it's very hard to search for a character like an asterisk as a search term on sites like Google or Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense "Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing." in languages other than German. If failed, move to a German section, and add a link to the page Gendersternchen somewhere.__Gamren (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- RFV failed; moved to German section.__Gamren (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there are enough other languages using this to merit calling it Translingual (I have no objection to it having been relabelled German), but FWIW this Washington Post primer asserts that French also sometimes uses "asterisks" ... even though their example is "'ami•e•s' for friends", using bullets 🙄. (We have an entry for this, as ami·e·s, using mid-dots. In practice, I suspect hyphens are also used.) - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
German usage notes
[edit]@-sche, Jberkel, Mahagaja: The first German usage note seems rather subjective and heavy-handed ("gender-neutral" is suggestive of scare quotes) and uses some terms in a debatable and not very professional fashion. What kind of revision would you like to see? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Good catch. I dropped the scare quotes and AFAICT-referenceless claim that the terms "emphasize the gender" and "usually have a female bias" (lol), as well as the bit on how the asterisk wouldn't work with certain terms it's ... not used with. If anyone wants to revise things further, or even restore a shorter note on how it's only used with certain sets of terms, have at it (I may do so myself later). - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, it is neither far fetched nor absurd to think that this form has a female bias. The reason why the generisches Maskulinum is avoided nowadays is because it coincides with the male form (which, as studies have shown, has an effect on the psychology and decision-making of women). At the same time, this form here coincides with the female one (at least in spoken language), although there has been an emergence of a phonemic glottal stop between the stem and the ending. Unlike in the case of the male-biased form, I am however not aware of any scientific publications on the effects of this form on male psychology. As such, I agree with your removal of it from the article. Fytcha (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- The entry claims that there's a female bias even with the glottal stop. If you're not listening carefully, there's a chance you might mishear it as feminine, but calling this a (purposeful?) bias sounds a bit paranoid. You now hear it on TV and in conversations. – Jberkel 23:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, it is neither far fetched nor absurd to think that this form has a female bias. The reason why the generisches Maskulinum is avoided nowadays is because it coincides with the male form (which, as studies have shown, has an effect on the psychology and decision-making of women). At the same time, this form here coincides with the female one (at least in spoken language), although there has been an emergence of a phonemic glottal stop between the stem and the ending. Unlike in the case of the male-biased form, I am however not aware of any scientific publications on the effects of this form on male psychology. As such, I agree with your removal of it from the article. Fytcha (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)