Talk:what

Early misc
The relative pronouns need to be checked. The Fr and Es ones were wrong - the relative pronoun and interrogative pronoun are different in each of these two languages. The same might apply to the other languages already listed.

My accent has the wine-whine merger, and I definitely don't pronounce "what" the same as "watt". Could we have more specific dialects? --Bran


 * If you have the merger, you pronounce them the same. If not, then 'wine' and 'whine' are as different as 'watt' and 'what'.129.67.89.165 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if your accent has the whine-wine merger, you could still pronounce them differently, as I do. An example is when one pronounces "what" as [wʌt] and "watt" as [wɑt]. It seems that only in British English, and with the whine-wine merger would someone pronounce these two words as the same.

Can someone change this please?


 * Done. Ferike333 21:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Expression
The British expression 'what' as in 'It's rather late, what?' is outdated. I know of no one who talks that way and no dictionary which lists it.--90.197.254.70 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's outdated then it exists. It pretty much nullifies your argument. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If my argument were that it doesn't exist, I would be incorrect. My argument is that it isn't current. It could be marked as 'obsolete' or 'archaic' like other entries are.--90.197.216.67 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Interjection"
Hmm, we have two senses under that heading. (As a Yank, i think i've never heard the what-what variant of the second sense, but the second-sense "What" and/or the Eh-wot that i think i've assumed to be interchangeable with it seems familiar from films. But i digress...) We call its use, as the first word of a sentence and followed by a comma, an interjection (as if distinct from the interrogative pronoun), and at least in effect back that up by the example
 * What! That’s amazing.

I sadly note that i can't imagine saying it in a way that justifies that punctuation, tho i find
 * What? That’s amazing!

quite plausible, and assume by default that they don't designate two oral forms that are worth non-specialists (if anyone) distinguishing between. So i wonder why anyone would construe that pronunciation onto those three words, and why they have not offered a more compelling example of a sentence whose only word is "what". I also note both that the interrobang remains pretty much a curiosity, and that identifying an interjection that parallels any interrogative pronoun strikes me as redundant to the following intuition: that any sentence whose only word is an interrogative pronoun has its pronunciation better represented with either a question mark, question mark followed by exclamation point, or interrobang, than by an exclamation point. (And its meaning strikes me as no better represented by an exclamation point.) --Jerzy•t 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Adverb
The defn i found was
 * Such; this is; that is.

and was accompanied by the examples
 * What a pity.
 * What a beautiful day!

but those examples are misleading as evidence of the role that "what" plays in them. If i say "Pity." (without any particular stress) i probably mean "That is admittedly a minor misfortune, but i deny culpability for my role in its occurrence, and if those affected think i screwed them, they expect too much from life." "What" and "Such" each act, before the "a " construction, to intensify the predication of the noun, or to intensify the adjective(s), indicating e.g. a notable pity or a notably beautiful day -- and intensification is an adverbial function. The elision of "this is" or "that is" is a separate phenomenon and non-adverbial, and happens to co-occur with "what" for reasons unrelated to the adverbial sense of "what". Such elision may occur unaccompanied by intensification, as when we exit a building and i utter "Hmm, damp." (bcz i didn't bring any rubbers) or we exit a cave and i utter "Sundown." (bcz we'd anticipated traversing a half hour's worth of woods in daylight). In a line, "this is" or "that is" is never part of the meaning of adverbial "what", and to treat them as part of what "what" itself implies tends to belie the identification of the grammatical role of "what" as being adverbial. So i have eliminated those two supposed (and non-adverbial) meanings for "what"; i doubt there are any usages where either --Jerzy•t 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) the function is not intensification, or
 * 2) specifying which entity is implicitly intended by the noun phrase following "What" is markedly more informative than specifying what entity would be intended if the noun phrase had occurred without "What" before it.


 * We give "what a beautiful day!" as an adverb, but "what a talent!" as a determiner. I believe this is contradictory. Equinox ◑ 00:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Determiner what: inanimate and animate, either human and non-human
Shuld the article mention that the determiner what is used for both singular or plural (in)animate beings, either human or non-human? --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May–June 2020
This may be a bit unorthodox, but I am requesting citations for North American /ʍɑt/ and /wɑt/, which the pronunciation section claims are used.

Anything but /ʍʌt/ and /wʌt/ sounds either affected or jocular (I could imagine /wɑt/ [and maybe /ʍɑt/] in some "online funny talk" or something like that) in North American English.

So I am requesting citations for those asserted pronunciations in North American English. Tharthan (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the vowel is far more common than the  vowel in the North American stressed pronunciation of what, both American Heritage and Merriam-Webster list the  pronunciation first, before the  pronunciation. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see three uses, not mentions, in support of any pronunciation. It must be fun having neither to cite or reference one's contributions. DCDuring (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously that's difficult for pronunciations, but I would consider rhymes and puns to be "use, not mention" evidence. For the case at hand, one example supporting the pronunciation is "", where  is made to rhyme with . An example supporting the  pronunciation is the 1980s bumper sticker "I Know Watt's Wrong". —Mahāgaja · talk 07:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously citations could support pronunciations here, should our phoneticians just choose to not exempt themselves from the need for such support. The web is awash with speech and song. We could even allow support from authority, ie, other dictionaries. DCDuring (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am closing this as resolved. Citations cannot show pronunciation, but has produced about the most one can expect. Kiwima (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

conjunction
That: I don't know but what I'll go https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=what --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a dialectal form (maybe American/US?). It feels like a replacement for that perhaps. Equinox ◑ 15:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * but (what) (Informal Conjunction) but what, but that; but who; who or that… not:

Who knows but what the sun may still shine. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This conjunction is in Chambers 1908 too, defined rather cryptically as "that, as in but what, that ... not". (In other words, e.g. "who knows but what X will happen" means "who knows that X will not happen".) Equinox ◑ 15:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Pronoun: how much
Pronoun (used in questions): how much? What does it cost? https://www.wordreference.com/definition/WHAT --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * We have it. Sense 1. First thing on the page. Equinox ◑ 17:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

2. the thing or things that; whatever What you need is a good meal. Nobody knows what will happen next. I spent what little time I had with my family.
[https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/what?q=what 2. the thing or things that; whatever:] ''What you need is a good meal. I spent what little time I had with my family.'' Strangely enough, Oxford's defines both meanings in a single second sense...--Backinstadiums (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January–February 2021
Tagged by 2003:de:3727:ff66:943c:e458:552c:9b20 today (using the RFC template; specifically the adverb section), not listed: “Chaucer and Malory aren't English but Middle English. (+ RfV for the English senses which have non-English cites?” J3133 (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"adjective"???
Regarding this sense:
 * Wow! What a speech.

How is this an adjective, and not a determiner? If it's really an adjective, wouldn't you say:
 * Wow! A what speech.

This looks a lot like a determiner to me. -- Mocha2007 (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Probably. Compare (as in "such a good boy"). Equinox ◑ 13:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

unstressed /(h)wət/
unstressed /(h)wət/ --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2021–January 2022
RFD alleged adverb sense:


 * 1)  In some manner or degree; in part; partly. See also what with
 * This leads to an uncertain situation for creditors what would negatively affect the willingness to provide credit.
 * This leads to an uncertain situation for creditors what would negatively affect the willingness to provide credit.
 * This leads to an uncertain situation for creditors what would negatively affect the willingness to provide credit.

Previously discussed at Tea_room/2021/December. Appears to be largely nonsense, though I am happy to be corrected if anyone can explain why there is anything here worth keeping. None of the definitions are substitutable into the two "finance" examples. The definitions may just about be grammatically substitutable into the "what with" example, but they do not seem to accurately capture the meaning of "what". There is no obvious connection between the "what with" usage and the "finance" examples. The "finance" examples do not appear to be correct standard English, and the only interpretation so far is that they are faulty or nonstandard uses of "what" as a relative pronoun (standard English "which" or "that"), which is dealt with elsewhere at what, possibly committed by non-native writers. Mihia (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The first usex is an instance of ; the others somewhat ungrammatical substitutions for (nonrestrictive) relative, referring back to a clause. Note that German would use here, which in other contexts corresponds to  (Ich weiß nicht, was soll es bedeuten, daß ich so traurig bin.).  --Lambiam 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This quote from Lorelei can be read simply as an embedded question, I don' t know, what should it mean, that I so sorry am. The word order is unusual (today, at least), but the unusual part translates fine into English, and I would chalk it up to poetic licence either way. ApisAzuli (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete; even if it's not deleted, I would move any cites of the form of the second and third usexes to be under the pronoun sense what they're actually using (they's uses of a dialectal pronoun what is in no way pacific to finance). - -sche (discuss) 16:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the second and third usexes are very atypical of native nonstandard use of "what" as a relative pronoun. The topic is not colloquial, and the rest of the language is relatively formal and advanced, with the "what"s sticking out like the proverbial. For this reason, I would personally discard these examples altogether. Mihia (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, I agree. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that the "what with" usage is not completely restricted to "with", but can exist with some other prepositions, albeit much more rarely (or in old language). M-W says "used principally before phrases beginning with with" (my emphasis), but does not actually give any non-with examples. However, I think this may be one:
 * "The Chinese of all ranks, and in every place, received my books gladly, and listened with patience to what I had to say about the true God.—So that what from opportunities of attending to the object of my Mission among the Chinese—what from seasons of religious instruction to Dutch and English—what from intercourse with gentlemen of education and knowledge of the world—what from occasions of stating clearly the object of Missions, and of endeavouring to remove prejudices against them—and what from the view of a highly cultivated country, happy under an enlightened and liberal government, I have much reason to be satisfied with this journey, [...]"
 * I think we ought to include this usage of "what" somehow, though I propose that we start again from scratch, so still delete the present effort. I'm not even sure what PoS it is. Other dictionaries say adverb, but it isn't very obvious to me why it is an adverb. Mihia (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now added this new entry, with examples for both "what from" and "what by". Mihia (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have after some careless considerstion come to the opinion that it might reflect the old subjunctive, the one that was replaced by optative that is now subjunctive. Then I went reading up on the Ancient Greek subjunctive and fell asleep. Romanian too introduces subjunctives with a conjunction, ša. So ... would that be totally crazy? Anyway, I won't vote keep on it as the examples seem made up on the spot by the IP who added it and at least one the examples procured by Lambi are clearly ESL (the 2nd, missing determiners), or avoiding a comparative where the standard would prefer than (the first). That got me thinking about substandard German wie ("klüger wie du", "mehr Niveau als wie du") and the now removed adverbial sense from 2016 "what to water, what to land", where "wie" would work similar to "bald" (cf. DWDS) and "so", hence my allusion to the auxilary verbs with the same initials. ApisAzuli (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The second and third usexes of the third adverbial sense are non-standard uses of ‘what’ to mean ‘that’ or ‘which’ (and bear no relation to the claimed definition) and the first example ‘what with the singing and dancing’ comes under the new sense 2 as it suggests that singing and dancing led to a certain consequence, not necessarily that they only in part led to that consequence. So delete. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. --Fytcha (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Unusual use in Dickens
How do we parse this one? "What time" here evidently means "at the (same) time as".


 * 1848, Charles Dickens, Dombey and Son
 * At all events, towards the Toodle habitation Miss Tox directed her steps one evening, what time Mr Toodle, cindery and swart, was refreshing himself with tea, in the bosom of his family.

Equinox ◑ 23:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A contraction like but with -time, as in ? Ie. in place of a fused relative, at which time. ApisAzuli (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)