Skip to main content

grammaticality - How is it we can omit 'what' from 'What the f--k are you doing?' but not 'how/who' from 'How/who the f--k are you doing?'


What is the difference between What (the) from How (the), Who (the), and other question words so that we can omit not only What but also What the from such sentences as



(What the) frick/hell/fuck are you doing?'



but not How (the) from



How the frick/hell/fuck are you doing?



and not When (the) or Why (the) from



When/Why the fuck are you doing that?



Attestation to the omission of What and What the is easy to find.



The hell (The fuck) are you doing?1



Cf The fuck are you talking about? in The Fuse, #8:


enter image description here


and



Hell/Fuck are you doing?2



But I as a native speaker I judge that removing How the and who the from the corresponding questions cannot be done without those sentences becoming ungrammatical. In other words


(The) fuck are you doing?


can stand for


What the fuck are you doing? but not


How the fuck are you doing?


Who the fuck are you doing?


In addition, it seems to me When and where cannot be removed from When/where the fuck are you doing that? Nor Why from Why the fuck are you doing that?



(I have read Lawler's usage of the hell, but he doesn't touch on omitting 'what' in 'What (in)(the) hell are you doing?, just that either but not both 'in' or 'the' can be omitted.)


1 Attested to by common usage such as here, here, here. In addition, the Urban Dictionary confirms that 'The fuck?' is short for 'What the fuck?' and says the corresponding thing about 'The hell?'


2 The even shorter 'the-less' versions are attested by common usage as seen here for example.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more