# what with



## Nico5992

Hi.
I'd like to understand the phrase "what with" as in this sentence:

I was relieved to get out off the car what with all the cigarette smoke.

Is it to be understood as "because of"?
And if so, is it colloquial?

Thx for your help


----------



## Elisabeth

What with means the same as because of or due to, and is generally used in a negative way. However I wouldn't say that it's used very often, or part of colloquial english.  Maybe someone else has more of an idea...!


----------



## Nico5992

Thank you Elisabeth, that's what I wanted to know.

In the book I'm reading it's a sentence said by a child, so maybe "what with" is a childish expression ?


----------



## Elisabeth

I don't really think so (at least I didn't say that when I was little!). When was the book written?


----------



## Nico5992

It's "The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Aged 13 3/4", bye Sue Townsend. I assume it's a pretty recent one (in the 90's I believe). But I might have made a mistake retranscripting the sentence.


----------



## Elisabeth

It was written in the mid-80s, but it's author is nearly 60, so that could explain why I don't think it's an expression used that commonly today, at least by younger people. I think you'll have to wait for someone else's response for a more informative answer!


----------



## Nico5992

I didn't know that 
Thanks a lot. I'll wait and see.


----------



## Jabote

Nico je pense que c'est l'équivalent de notre "j'étais soulagé(e) de sortir de la voiture, avec toute cette fumée de cigarette...", non ?


----------



## Nico5992

J'imagine en effet que la traduction doit être celle que tu proposes.
Mais je voulais avoir plus d'infos sur cette expression "what with" afin de ne pas la réutiliser à mauvais escient. Apparent, elle n'est pas très courante, donc je crois que je vais éviter de m'en servir.


----------



## Jabote

Ah là là... c'est dans des cas comme ça que je sens ma "vieuxture".... c'est une tournure vieillie apparemment, et je ne m'en rendais même pas compte....


----------



## fetchezlavache

I disagree. I am in contact with several British people, and it's something they say often-ish.

En général, elle est même renforcée par 'and all'. _I didn't want to disturb you last night, what with your being so busy and all._

*je ne suis pas d'accord pour dire que c'est une expression vieillie.*

PS et voilà ce que j'ai trouvé sur dictionary.com


> what with
> Taking into consideration; because of: “I've often wondered why some good crime writer... hasn't taken up with New Orleans, what with its special raffishness, its peculiar flavor of bonhomie and a slightly suspect charm” (Walker Percy).


----------



## Nico5992

Si je comprends bien, ça se retrouve essentiellement dans le langage parlé.

Cette expression est sûrement plus ou moins utilisée selon les régions du Royaume-Uni, ce qui expliquerait pourquoi Elisabeth -- qui est quand même anglaise -- la considère comme peu commune.

?


----------



## Benjy

Nah.. ça dépend plus de la personne à qui tu poses la question que de la région. Il y en a qui le disent il y en a qui le disent pas. Personnellement, je m'en sers de temps en temps... Ça dépend des gens


----------



## Nico5992

Thank you Benjy, it's perfectly clear now


----------



## smorodina

Adrian Mole is a very funny character and sometimes he uses phrases and words that he considers "classy". Sue Townsend puts "grown-up" words into a teenager's mouth to achieve a humorous effect. I love the book! Nico, look out for the word "majestic", I hope you'll have a giggle or two 

There are a few more diaries of Adrian Mole. The latest one was published last year, it is called "Adrian Mole and The Weapons of Mass Destruction". Adrian is aged 34 and 1/4 then.


----------



## Tsarina

Nico5992 said:
			
		

> Si je comprends bien, ça se retrouve essentiellement dans le langage parlé. ?


In the US, too, there are people who use it and people who don't, as Benjy says. Above all, it is colloquial, spoken language; Adrian Mole's diary purports to be by a 12 year old boy, which makes that kind of language appropriate. But anyone in this forum over 12 would probably not want to write it in anything formal. Saying it is fine and hardly old fashioned.

As Fetchez says, it is very frequently combined with "and all".


----------



## zinc

Elisabeth said:
			
		

> What with means the same as because of or due to, and is generally used in a negative way. However I wouldn't say that it's used very often, or part of colloquial english. Maybe someone else has more of an idea...!


I agree on all points! "What with" is a clumsy spoken-word expression to qualify unpleasant situations or experiences. E.g. "It was a nightmare holiday, what with the appalling hotel, non-stop rain, etc etc". I'm doubtful it's grammatically correct and I strongly recommend NOT using it, unless you wish to ingratiate yourself with the retirees at the Hackney bingo centre.


----------



## Nico5992

lol, zinc 
it's very clear now


----------



## fetchezlavache

well zinc, thanks for your opinion, but in spite of your advice i'll keep using it, and with the help of the gods of tolerance towards furriners, my american and english friends won't ban me from the bingo club !!


----------



## BonhomieKris

Hi everyone,

After many a month of happily using this website to improve my french I have finally been moved by your discussion to join up and pitch in my 'euro'.

I love discussions such as this one and hope that I can bring something to it.

I guess that the orginal question could be paraphrased as "what's with what with"?

Grammatically speaking, "*what with* " is a correlative conjunction.  This means that it must be paired with another phrase in order to remain grammatically correct.  In this case "*what with* " must be paired with "*and* ".  Some other correlative conjunctions are *both...and* , *either...or*  and *neither...nor*.

One could therefore say, "*What with* all of these questions, debates *and *  arguements, I feel that I must give my opinion".

The example that you give is therefore not grammatically correct in the strict sense, but readily understood by most native English speakers.  As with all languages, different regions will tend to use this phrase with a varied frequency.  Personally, I feel that this phrase has associations with class stereotypes.  It would be more likely for an upper class individual of society to say "what with" than a working class speaker.  With the gradual errosion of class distinctions, this phrase is used rarely by members of the younger generation.

I hope that this helps and congratulate you on your choice of book,
Kris

PS There was also a drama series made out of the books that was very popular and funny to watch as I was growing up.  You may enjoy it too, and get another perspective on the type of character who would use such a phrase.


----------



## fetchezlavache

ha so that makes me an upper-class (what ho jeeves) old-fashioned bingo addict !! gonna be tough to ask harrison ford to marry me huh. 

seriously, *bonhomiekris*, thanks for shedding some more light on this.


----------



## rlanglands

I assumed it originated in the US. There is a sense of "but this is not the only reason".


----------



## sunshine58

I believe I'm perhaps a bit late in making this post, but I would prefer to qualify the expression more as a phrase used to add a particular flavor, a certain jenesaisquoi to the sentence, whether the context be literary or colloquial. It's neither formal nor informal, neither negative nor positive; it's simply an interesting way of saying "avec", or "a cause de". It's a linguistic seasoning, so to speak. When I think about it, I identify it more with a British accent, but that's probably a stereotype of some sort...


----------



## john_riemann_soong

> The example that you give is therefore not grammatically correct in the strict sense, but readily understood by most native English speakers.



I have to vehemently disagree. "What with" is not a correlative conjunction. In fact, the "what" pairs the ensuing clause (more or less) with the previous one. If "with" is pairing anything, it's pairing those two clauses, not two objects or whatever. "What with" is nothing like "both...and" or "either...or". Come on!

And it's not an old expression either. It's a rather sassy construction, now that I think of it -- with a bit of understatement. It's a very good way to introduce a very big reason as a sort of passing "oh, that's understandable" one.


----------



## Budd

This phrase, I think originally AE, is substandard English, but commonplace.  Example:  *What with the housework and taking the children to soccer practice and piano lessons, Mrs. Bentoutofshape was too busy to cook dinner.*  You might translate "what with" as "Because (of)" (e.g., Because she was so busy, etc.) or as "Given" or "In light of" or "Considering" (e.g., Because of/Given/In light of all the housework, etc.).  Can anyone suggest an _equally idiomatic_ French translation of "what with"?  Thanks.


----------



## shanya

You could say " à cause de" / "en raison de " which means _what with_. But the 1st suggestion matches more for this sentence.
Is it ok for you?


----------



## Soyou

we usually use (more idiomatic) the word _avec_
_Avec_ le menage et..., Mrs B*** etait trop occupee pour preparer le diner


----------



## Budd

It's straightforward and covers the ground, shanya, and I thank you, but "à cause de" / "en raison de" are perfectly good standard French.  I was hoping to find something less formal or even less correct.  The point of "what with" is that it actually defies even casual American grammar, but not usage.


----------



## Budd

Merci, Soyou, j'aime mieux avec.  Autres idées?


----------



## se16teddy

Budd said:


> it actually defies even casual American grammar


Do you have any authority for that suggestion, Budd? The Oxford English Dictionary gives 700 years' worth of examples (beginning 1175) of this use of _what_ (the OED's meaning D2b of _what_). 
_What with the war; __what with the sweat, __what with the gallowes, and __what with pouerty, I am Custom-shrunke._ (SHAKESPEARE Measure for Measure I. ii. 83)


----------



## Budd

The authority, se16Teddy, is not the OED: after all, it recognizes _ain't _as well. I did not say it was _not_ grammatical: I said it defies standard grammar.  There is, as far as I can see, no way to reconcile "what with" with any basic structural meaning.  We simply understand it in large part because it has been around for so long.  It has meaning only because it means something to us, not because it is structurally compelling.  Forgive me if this sounds like hairsplitting: it is not.  Think of the way we understand various constructions--try five distinct meanings, for example, of "carry on"--and you'll understand what I was suggesting.  Thanks.


----------



## se16teddy

Budd said:


> I said it defies standard grammar.


You said it was 'substandard English'. I took that to mean that it offended against a rule that a prescriptive grammarian has laid down. I desired to know who that prescriptive grammarian is. 

Now you are arguing, I think, that the expression _what with... _breaches a rule of logic or of universal grammar ("basic structural meaning"), rather than breaching a mere convention. I am not clear what particular rule of logic or of universal grammar you are referring to. 

As far as I am aware, there is no logic in lexis! It is true that there is no obvious correlation between the expression _what with..._ and the usual meaning of _what_ and _with_. But is the word _carpet_ substandard English because it has nothing to do with a car or a pet?


----------



## Budd

se16teddy said:


> Surely that means that you must adjust your 'basic' structural model to accommodate this common English idiom? Or make that model a bit less basic?


 
Nénil, Teddy, no.  I'm approachging this from the point of view of philology not structural linguistics.  Langauges, the couple I know at least a little, have their eccentrcities which do not measure up to structural models, which is why I am not arguing for them.  Consider the English phrases "You had better" or "I would rather."  They function perfectly well as complete sentences and usually do.  You can say, and I won't argue a whole lot, that an infinitive and more may be implied--You had better eat your raw kidneys or I would rather die that eat raw kidneys.  But in these two examples, _rather_ and _better_, essentially adverbial, function as verbal auxiliaries, I guess.  What they are is to me an uninteresting question of nomenclature.  What is interesting is that they make no sense according to Fowler or Warriner, except they make sense to any native speaker and the well indoctrinated foreigner.  Does this make my point clearer?


----------



## Wopsy

I would say 'Entre ...'


----------



## se16teddy

I think there is a word for your 'substandard English', your 'eccentricities that do not measure up to structural models' and your 'structures defying standard grammar': they are *idioms*. For me they are the soul of a language; I got the impression from your posts that you think they are somehow wrong or extraneous, and that's when I pricked up my ears. 

I fear I have rather hijacked this thread, and maybe it would be better to continue any discussion in the English Only forum. 

By the way, I am sorry about the confusion caused by thread #8: I submitted my post and then completely rewrote it; but you were quick enough to pick up on the original.


----------



## Budd

*Teddy, see the last line of my original post, Thread #1: I asked for an "equally idiomatic" phrase.*  If you want to start a new thread in the English Only Forum, where I have not yet participated, go ahead.


----------



## alexus34

Good morning !

In the following sentence, why are we using "What with...and..." And not " as much with... As with..." ?

What with the recession and the war, our sales decreased by on third.

Merci !


----------



## moustic

"What with" en début de phrase se traduirait par "à cause de ...".


----------



## alexus34

Merci moustic


----------

