Talk:say wha

Tea room discussion
My knee jerk reaction was to just delete this offense. Even the definition uses wha. - Amgine/talk 04:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't think we need a separate entry for a clipped version of an expression where the clipped spelling is not hard to connect to the original. Otherwise it seems just to be an alternative pronunciation. This particular pronunciation could be heard 2 miles from my house. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should add [[wha]], with a definition like “ ”. Once we do that, I agree with y'all that we shouldn't have [[say wha]], because it'll be sum-of-parts. —Ruakh TALK 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, but only for interjection. Not confident about other PoSs. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If we have [[say what]] (which we do), then [[say wha]] can redirect, as we do for other phrases.—msh210 ℠ 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we don't use redirects on Wiktionary unless absolutely necessary. If it is a slang alternative form of "say what", then this is what should go at say wha (and indeed we now have something similar). A redirect is unhelpful because it doesn't explain the relationship between the entry linked from and the entry linked to. &mdash; Paul G 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. [[gave in]] redirects to [[give in]], because [[gave]] already explains that gave: is the past tense of give:, so [[gave in]] doesn't need to. Likewise, [[wha]] already explains that wha: is an eye-dialect spelling of what:, so [[say wha]] doesn't need to duplicate that explanation. (Presumably someone looking up say wha: already knows what wha: is, else they'd be looking that up instead.) —Ruakh TALK 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)