Talk:superstar
Add topicLatest comment: 12 years ago by Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV in topic superstar
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Adjective. I can't imagine it meeting any test for a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete this POS. These "senses" merely describe attributive usages of the noun. · 05:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe RfV. A possible citation here, though the "more" looks italicised. — Pingkudimmi
- Citations and other facts are allowed here. It is quite conceivable that there is some usage, preferably not in quotes, possibly in entertainment-oriented articles in News. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Citations and other facts are encouraged here! Pingku's citation ("The more superstar they are, they harder they are to get to because they're so protected by agents, bodyguards, managers, […] ") is interesting, because there "the more superstar they are" clearly means "the more they're superstars", such that superstar there means "being a superstar". That doesn't accord with either of our adjective senses, and it's hard to imagine anyone using superstar as an adjective with that sense in a more typical syntactic frame: *"she's superstar", *"she's so superstar", etc. ("She's superstar" does get one relevant-at-first-glance b.g.c. hit, but it's in "she's superstar enough to […] ", where I think other nouns work as well: "she's fool enough to […] ", "she's liar enough to […] ", etc.) So I'm inclined to chalk Pingku's citation up to speech error caused by complex syntax. Even after thinking about it, I don't know a great way to "fix" that quotation to not treat "superstar" as an adjective — I suppose "the more of a superstar they are", but it's awkward because the they there is a true plural they, not a singular they — so it's not surprising that the speaker failed. —RuakhTALK 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps "too|very superstar" at News. "That dress is so superstar" seems plausible. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- But not in the same sense as Pingku's citation. —RuakhTALK 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps "too|very superstar" at News. "That dress is so superstar" seems plausible. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Citations and other facts are encouraged here! Pingku's citation ("The more superstar they are, they harder they are to get to because they're so protected by agents, bodyguards, managers, […] ") is interesting, because there "the more superstar they are" clearly means "the more they're superstars", such that superstar there means "being a superstar". That doesn't accord with either of our adjective senses, and it's hard to imagine anyone using superstar as an adjective with that sense in a more typical syntactic frame: *"she's superstar", *"she's so superstar", etc. ("She's superstar" does get one relevant-at-first-glance b.g.c. hit, but it's in "she's superstar enough to […] ", where I think other nouns work as well: "she's fool enough to […] ", "she's liar enough to […] ", etc.) So I'm inclined to chalk Pingku's citation up to speech error caused by complex syntax. Even after thinking about it, I don't know a great way to "fix" that quotation to not treat "superstar" as an adjective — I suppose "the more of a superstar they are", but it's awkward because the they there is a true plural they, not a singular they — so it's not surprising that the speaker failed. —RuakhTALK 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Citations and other facts are allowed here. It is quite conceivable that there is some usage, preferably not in quotes, possibly in entertainment-oriented articles in News. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe RfV. A possible citation here, though the "more" looks italicised. — Pingkudimmi
- RFD failed, no supporting votes. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)