The pointless use of the ast*r**sk!

DiscussionsPedants' corner

Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.

The pointless use of the ast*r**sk!

Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.

1Booksloth
Modifié : Nov 15, 2013, 7:38 am

Here's one that really winds me up and I've just been put in mind of it by another LT thread. It's people who use asterisks rather than soil their fingertips typing a 'naughty' word. What earthly good is this supposed to do? Is there really anyone alive who reads the word 'f*ck' as anything other than 'fuck' and are their sensibilities somehow protected by substituting a gemoetric shape for a perfectly harmless letter that is in any other context extremely *seful?

I have every respect for anyone who (unlike me) prefers not to use profanities, though this does demonstrate the limitations that can bring when discussing a book title such as Crap Towns (or, as the thread concerned would have it, Cr*p Towns) but how do they really think they are getting round that by inserting an asterisk? They know what they mean; everyone else knows what they mean.

It's not only on public forums like LT: I have a friend who does this in all her personal emails and it secrectly drives me just a little crazy. After all, she does have the choice of saying she thought something was 'not very good' rather than that it was 'sh*t'. Does she really think I will read 'sh*t' as some other word? If that's the case, why obscure her meaning in that way? If she thinks it was shit, why can't she say it was shit? If she dislikes using that parricular word why doesn't she find another that does not require obfuscation?

I'm not talking here about politeness in front of maiden aunts. One of the first things I learned about English language at school was that language that is appropriate among friends is not necessarily the same language that should be used in front of elderly relatives of at a job interview (something I fear is no longer taught in schools, judging by some of the text-speak job applications I have seen) but it was still a straight choice between either using the word or not using it. And, let's face it, how the fuck is one supposed to pronounce the word 'f*ck' when reading aloud? Are we meant to make little quotation marks in the air (yeuch)? Or spell it out?

2ScarletBea
Modifié : Nov 15, 2013, 7:29 am

hehe I think it's more a question of skipping over word/net restrictions in work computers than anything else - i.e. to avoid your work computer filter from blocking that page due to a 'naughty' word.

3pinkozcat
Nov 15, 2013, 7:33 am

Some forums have filters which screen out naughty words which is why people started using asterisks in the first place.

There was an education department site here in Western Australia which had a forum where complaints could be aired - but the site stopped all words beginning with the letter 'c' and people found that they couldn't use the word 'class'.

There are biology sites which ban words such as penis and breast. To be on the safe side, when I want to swear online I use the standard @#%$

4Morphidae
Nov 15, 2013, 7:37 am

There is a website that I'm on that even blocks the asterisked versions.

5Booksloth
Modifié : Nov 15, 2013, 7:41 am

Thank you both, that explains quite a bit (though obviously not my star-struck friend). I would dispute that those forums are where the whole thing started because I can remember people doing this long before anyone had a computer (and, of course, in the UK at least, newspapers are the biggest culprits) but it definitely makes sense regarding online usage.

#4 Didn't mean to ignore you Morphidae - we crossed in the ether. All I can say in that case is thank god for good old, enlightened LT!

6keristars
Nov 15, 2013, 9:44 am

I don't get it either, but is it related to the prohibition of writing the word "God" by certain religions? (I think it's mostly Judaism, but I've seen a few Christians write "G-d" as well.) It never really made sense to me, because how is G-d different than God, since everyone knows what the word is, but apparently leaving out the one letter is vital, and it doesn't actually mean God Dammit, the way some people say "G. D." instead.

7lilithcat
Nov 15, 2013, 10:05 am

> 6

I doubt there's a connection. Judaism forbids erasing the name of G-d, so some Jews do not write out the word where there is a risk that it might be erased or destroyed, even accidentally.

8.Monkey.
Nov 15, 2013, 10:50 am

>6 keristars: Right, like lilithcat said, it's not hiding the word, it's because the name of God is sacred and to have it written on something that could be ruined/destroyed/etc would be hugely bad, but if it's replaced with the dash then it's not actually the name and therefore is safe to write. If the paper gets thrown in the trash, it's not going to dirty his name, or whatever.

Totally in agreement with the OP. It's an absurd practice and the only place it's acceptable is when there are language filters on a website that need to be circumvented.

9keristars
Nov 15, 2013, 11:35 am

7, 8> Aha! That's totally the opposite of what I thought was going on. I think I associated it somehow with stories I read as a child of Golems and how if a word was written on the clay, it would come to life as a horrible monster, but if it wasn't fully written, then the word had no power and it wouldn't come to life as a horrible monster. Also, associating it with the practice discussed in this thread, of course.

I learned something today. :)

10.Monkey.
Nov 15, 2013, 11:43 am

Well it's sort of similar to the Golem thing, in that since it's not properly written it's not really the thing in question, and hence there's no consequences, so to speak, for it. :)

11jbbarret
Nov 15, 2013, 4:47 pm

> 7, 8 I thought it was even forbidden to say the name:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ5YU_spBw0

12bernsad
Nov 15, 2013, 4:54 pm

>11 jbbarret: Thanks for that, I guessed what it was before I followed the link but I had a good chuckle anyway.

14barney67
Nov 16, 2013, 2:04 pm

Used rarely it can be kind of funny. Other than that? No, I don't use an asterisk. The writer should be able to find a different word. I tend to see profanity itself as a sign of laziness, immaturity, and unsophistication. I don't swear much in conversation or in print. I like to save profanity for proper situations, like while I'm trying to fix the damn toilet, which can't go a year without needing repair.

15PossMan
Nov 16, 2013, 2:28 pm

#14: To which I'd like to add newly bought products — from sliced meat to (todays' problem) batteries. They always need tools even if that means scissors or knives. Just hope you bought the tools whilst you still had good teeth.

16jbbarret
Nov 16, 2013, 2:51 pm

>13 andyl: I've always admired the Grauniad's honesty in that respect. If a word is to be used then print it.
Praise the Grauniad? Oh! my sainted *unt.

17jbbarret
Nov 16, 2013, 2:57 pm

I meant aunt!

18Osbaldistone
Modifié : Nov 16, 2013, 10:19 pm

Replacing some letters with '*' continues in the US on television because, I assume, there are still some limitations on what can be said/written on TV, though cable-only channels seem to have looser restrictions than broadcast. There is even the audio equivalent, where they beep out most of the work, but leave in the first and last consonants. As with the printed word, only the very young can keep from hearing the intended word when they do this.

Os.

19Osbaldistone
Nov 16, 2013, 10:18 pm

As far as the 'name of God' business, I've not been directly informed by the ultim*te so*rce, but I doubt that his/her actual name is God. I know when I was growing up in the ch*rch, no one ever suggested that it was his/her actu*l name, nor have I heard anyone expre*s such an opinion in any church I've been a part of as an ad*lt.

Os.

20JerryMmm
Nov 17, 2013, 4:31 am

from wikipedia:
The words "God" (used for the Hebrew Elohim) and "Lord" (used for the Hebrew Adonai) are often written by many Jews as "G-d" and "'L-rd'" as a way of avoiding writing in full any name of God. In Deuteronomy 12:3-4, the Torah exhorts one to destroy idolatry, adding, "you shall not do such to the Lord your God." From this verse it is understood that one should not erase or blot out the name of God. The general halachic opinion is that this only applies to the sacred Hebrew names of God, but not to other euphemistic references; there is a dispute whether the word "God" in English or other languages may be erased.

And then they link to shaimos.org.

21justjim
Nov 17, 2013, 6:09 am

This is Pedants' Corner, not Pro & Con (or whatever is left of that group). I think we should confine ourselves to technical discussions of grammar and not petty religious mis-usages.

Bwahahahahahahaha! Sorry.

22thorold
Nov 18, 2013, 10:33 am

On a related note, there was a post in the Hobnob group a day or two ago promoting a new "Clean Fantasy" novel. It struck me as rather a strange way to designate a genre (especially when the synopsis makes it clear that the plot centres around sex(*) and violence, rather than bathing and laundry). Like the asterisks, it just seems to be drawing attention to the thing it's meant to be protecting us from.

(*) Either that particular author has a somewhat non-standard understanding of the verb "beget", or the book is about a woman making a man pregnant.

23Amtep
Nov 18, 2013, 6:12 pm

Ironically, a fantasy about bathing would probably not be considered "Clean".

24pinkozcat
Nov 19, 2013, 12:01 am

"Either that particular author has a somewhat non-standard understanding of the verb "beget", or the book is about a woman making a man pregnant."

#22 thorold, you did say that it was a fantasy book.

25thorold
Nov 19, 2013, 4:30 am

>24 pinkozcat:
Exactly. I'm not excluding the possibility: I haven't read the book.

26CliffordDorset
Nov 19, 2013, 6:42 am

I have to say that I find the use of clean/dirty in the context of sex betrays a mind hidebound by some repressive tradition that we'd be far better without. I approve of thorold's challenge in (22), and in general encourage our questioning of this usage!

27jbbarret
Nov 19, 2013, 6:48 am

In addition we should question the link frequently made (as in the synopsis quoted in #22) between sex and violence.

28.Monkey.
Nov 19, 2013, 7:46 am

>26 CliffordDorset:/27 Very much agreed! While I have no objection to content disclaimers when a book is intended for a young audience, the notion of "clean" is an incredibly poor one. And the easy equating of sex and violence is one of the huge issues in our rape-culture society these days.

29thorold
Nov 19, 2013, 7:56 am

>26 CliffordDorset:
Yes. "Dirty" might be OK if we were consistent in using it for stuff that is so evil that it will contaminate you if you touch it. But in practice we usually use it rather like "naughty", for something that becomes a bit more exciting because it has a hint of the forbidden about it. And "clean" comes with the false idea that you make something good and wholesome by taking out certain words and the direct mention of certain acts.

>27 jbbarret:
To be fair, the author appears to be making a narrative link between sex and violence, something for which there is good, sound literary precedent all the way back to The Iliad. In this case, I'm the one conditioned by endlessly hearing those two words bracketed together to pick them out of the synopsis as types of subject-matter that don't seem to sit easily with the notion of "clean".

30Booksloth
Nov 20, 2013, 7:14 am

#29 "the author appears to be making a narrative link between sex and violence, something for which there is good, sound literary precedent all the way back to The Iliad". But precedence doesn't necessarily mean something is right. The fact that some people associate the two in their minds is no good reason for the rest of us to propagate the association. There is no inherent connection between sex and violence and the fact that the two are so often spoken of in the same breath leads some people to believe there must be some commonality. In this country (UK) I blame the late unlamented Mary Whitehouse, who was unable to differentiate one from the other and had the idea that loving consensual sex was somehow on a par with beating the brains out of another person. That woman had a lot to answer for.

31.Monkey.
Nov 20, 2013, 8:23 am

Yes, exactly. The fact that it's so common does not mean it should be accepted. You should check out the FemFreq series on tropes about women characters, it was either in part 1 or 2 where she discusses how the women are always kidnapped/raped/assaulted/murdered as the motivation for the male hero to go on his rampage of the game. Same issue.

32thorold
Modifié : Nov 20, 2013, 8:33 am

Ce message a été supprimé par son auteur

33Novak
Nov 21, 2013, 7:38 pm

21> Agreed. (Love the cartoon.)

Herewith two sentences from NASA's excellent website.

(1) Scientists also will be able to study the conditions in the atmosphere during lunar sunrise and sunset, where previous crewed and robotic missions detected a mysterious glow of rays and streamers reaching high into the lunar sky.

(2) It also was the first probe launched beyond Earth orbit from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on the Virginia coast.

Anyone any idea what is driving the word “also” to be used in this unusual way?

34pinkozcat
Nov 21, 2013, 8:24 pm

A semi-illiterate writer?

35Osbaldistone
Nov 22, 2013, 12:23 am

I've also heard that mysterious rays during the lunar sunrise can effect the part of the brain that controls language also.

Os.

36thorold
Nov 22, 2013, 3:22 pm

>33 Novak:,35
Anyone who knows anything about space flight knows that "Also" always comes before "sprach"...

37JerryMmm
Nov 22, 2013, 3:55 pm

I know this group is wont to go off on a tangent, but this is going straight into space!

38pgmcc
Nov 22, 2013, 5:37 pm

#36 Boom! Boom!

39justjim
Nov 25, 2013, 10:14 pm

#36 Bravo Mark! Of course the NASA writer in #33 would probably write that as "Zarathustra spoke thusly…"

40Novak
Déc 5, 2013, 1:22 pm

"Pensioners living abroad will have to prove they are alive more often in a crackdown on fraud and error".

Oh, don't you just love the BBC on-line news?

41Amtep
Déc 6, 2013, 5:22 am

It's part of the War on Error.

42pgmcc
Déc 6, 2013, 6:32 am

Every time someone makes a typo the errorists win.

43CliffordDorset
Déc 6, 2013, 6:35 pm

So THAT's why the CIA are monitoring my internet!

44Osbaldistone
Déc 6, 2013, 10:44 pm

>42 pgmcc:
And yet they let people carry typos onto commercial airplanes but confiscate our nail files!

Os.

45Novak
Déc 7, 2013, 8:22 am

>43 CliffordDorset: No we're not.

46defaults
Déc 7, 2013, 1:55 pm

Automatic censor filters on forums can be a laugh. A music forum I sometimes read censors the word "adblock", which every now and then presents a surprising ro******* for comprehension.

47jbbarret
Déc 7, 2013, 3:45 pm

>46 defaults: Known as the Scunthorpe problem, due to its being displayed as S****horpe.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe

48Amtep
Déc 7, 2013, 5:01 pm

I've been on a game forum that automatically censored certain words by replacing them with "less offensive" alternatives.

People were somewhat surprised when they discussed their new game item, the pockefemale genitaliach.

On a different forum with a similar filter, I was exposed to the concept of buttbuttination, a truly fearsome fate.

49Sophie236
Déc 13, 2013, 4:10 am

#47 - Clitheroe has similar problems!

50EricJT
Déc 21, 2013, 3:15 pm

There used to be an advertising slogan for a brand of tea asserting that "Typhoo puts the T into Great Britain".
On the main railway station in Hull there was a graffito asking:
"If Typhoo puts the T into Great Britain,
Who puts the cunt into Scunthorpe?"

(Hull is on the opposite side of the river Humber from Scunthorpe.)

51CliffordDorset
Déc 22, 2013, 7:01 pm

>50 EricJT:

With apologies for going off-topic, can I add that this sort of geographic rivalry can be very amusing. Again concerning railways, the legend "Harwich for the Continent" has occasionally been augmented with "Frinton for the incontinent".

52thorold
Déc 25, 2013, 4:49 am

>51 CliffordDorset:
In the version I remember (probably from some Radio 4 show of the Frank Muir/Clement Freud era) the mythical sign at Liverpool Street had been completed with "...and Paris for the rest of us". Which tends to suggest that the meaning of "continent" that most obviously comes to mind has shifted over the years!

(For the benefit of American readers: Paris is a French city once noted among the British for its sexual licence; Frinton a seaside town popular with elderly middle-class people)

53Novak
Modifié : Jan 19, 2014, 4:11 pm

It seems to me that someone should point out to booksloth that there are only two ast*r*sks in ast*r*sk.. .. :)

54jbbarret
Jan 19, 2014, 4:08 pm

>53 Novak: Then why don't you do it? I'm not going to.

55Novak
Jan 19, 2014, 4:12 pm

Oh, go on.. .. .. .. .. She likes you.

56keristars
Jan 19, 2014, 7:44 pm

Well, booksloth did specify "pointless" asterisks. That could explain the third one...

57pinkozcat
Jan 19, 2014, 10:53 pm

I can see six points in each asterisk

58PhaedraB
Jan 19, 2014, 10:59 pm

Six six six. Hmm...

59BoMag
Jan 20, 2014, 3:28 am

Ce utilisateur a été suspendu du site.

60Booksloth
Jan 20, 2014, 7:24 am

#55 I like you too, Novak! :-)

All this time and I'd never noticed that. Well, I'm a language and lit girl, I never said I could count. Eek, Phaedra, you spotted my secret - is anyone really surprised?

So now I've been dragged kicking and screaming back into the conversation I'll just add another and similar point. A few days ago one of our TV channels showed the film 'Meet the Fockers'. Know what? That's another one that has always wound me up. I know I'll never watch it, just because of the title. It's not as if it's that witty anyway. If someone said to me "The family next door to me is horrible, noisy and badly behaved and what's more, next weekend you'll get to meet the fuckers" that wouldn't offend me in the slightest; it would seem to me like a pretty good descriptive noun applied to an annoying family. 'Meet the Fockers", however, is just mealy-mouthed. A pathetic stab at a joke by someone who is scared of real profanity but wants to sound daring. I just know that whoever came up with that one and I would never get on.

61alaudacorax
Modifié : Jan 20, 2014, 7:33 am

#18 - There is even the audio equivalent, where they beep out most of the work, but leave in the first and last consonants.

It's timely that I should discover this thread. Somewhere online within the last day or two (I think it was a movie trailer on YouTube), I found myself repeatedly replaying a 'fuck' to work out whether it had been censored or not. I realised they'd cut out - not beeped over - the 'u', but the 'f' and 'ck' were fully left and clearly pronounced. The difference was barely noticeable. Try saying it without the 'u' and you'll sound exactly like what I heard. So what on earth did the person or people responsible believe they were doing?

ETA - Perhaps don't try saying it if you're at work. Sorry.

62Novak
Modifié : Jan 21, 2014, 2:48 pm

60>. I like you too, Novak! :-)

Awww, You're only saying that because it's true.

I just know that whoever came up with that one {The Fockers} and I would never get on.

That would be George Clooney. Coincidence, he asked to be introduced to the charming lady who started the Pedants' Corner Group. I'd better email and put him off.

63Booksloth
Jan 22, 2014, 6:03 am

#62 That's okay - I never was much of a fan. Was it really him? Although he's decidedly not my type (bit of a pretty boy) I've always thought he seemed like an okay kind of bloke but now I'm beginning to wonder.

64Novak
Jan 22, 2014, 9:12 am

Booksloth, if there is one thing I cannot stand it is someone who won't believe me when I am lying.

65Booksloth
Jan 23, 2014, 3:37 am

Now I don't know whether to believe that either.

66Novak
Jan 24, 2014, 11:54 am

Just a moment, I just automatically put an apostrophe in “won't”. What's that doing there?

67CliffordDorset
Fév 1, 2014, 10:29 am

>60 Booksloth:

I think it was in the nineteen-seventies that I saw a large poster in the London (UK) underground railway for a supposedly humorous WWII airforce movie that bore the comments of two people looking up at a warplane: 1) 'It's a Fokker!' and 2) 'You can say that again!'

So, Miss Dominatrix-in-Chief, this would seem to suggest that the usage has been assimilated into our Great British culture.

68JerryMmm
Fév 1, 2014, 10:37 am

I never realised Dick Swaab was such a funny name when in pronounced in English...

69Booksloth
Fév 2, 2014, 4:52 am

#67 So, Miss Dominatrix-in-Chief, this would seem to suggest that the usage has been assimilated into our Great British culture.

Not into mine, it ain't! I guess that was probably my point - the 'joke's been around ever since the aircraft. If it was funny then it sure isn't now.