Talk:for what it's worth

Tea room discussion
I tried to write a definition for for what it's worth:, but couldn't come up with anything useful. Is anyone up to the challenge? Rod (A. Smith) 03:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Interjection. ? DCDuring TALK 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems right. Is there a glossy definition that might do the job just as well?  Rod (A. Smith) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a brief suitable one. I can think of synonyms, but they are more idiomatic, eg, "my two cents". Non-glosses are common with interjections, if that's what this should be called. How about "although I am not sure how valuable it is to you"? DCDuring TALK 16:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would call this an adverb, since it functions to introduce a phrase or clause in much the same way as however, on the other hand, and other similar expressions (although not with the same meaning). --EncycloPetey 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you two. It seems that historically, the phrase was used to qualify a statement that was mentioned separately from making the statement, but now the phrase is typically used with a statement without a separate mention (or rather, only with an implied mention).  Hopefully the glossy definition I added (“considering what limited worth that this advice, opinion, or suggestion might have for you”) works for both the historical and the modern uses and the new etymology explains that shift.  If it seems a bit wordy, feel free to polish it.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. The first cite seems to be the original, mostly SoP, adverbial use. The others show how it has become more formulaic and parenthetical or interjectory. The usage realities seem to be morphing. My two cents. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "For what it's worth" (internet abbreviation: FWIW) is somewhat like "FYI" ("for your information") but emphasizes that the recipient not only is not expected to act on the information conveyed but is free to totally disregard it they find it of no particular value for any practical purpose all things considered.  In other words, the sender thinks the information may have value for the receipient (and hence shares it) but in terms of relationships has no ego-attachment to the recipient doing anything with the information.  Kierkegaard409  14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I love this definition! :)