What's that mean

[nq:1]Is the sentence "What's that mean?" correct? I read it often. I've been taught that you can abbreviate "is" and "has" with 's. But neither seems to apply to the sentence. Is it by any chance an abbreviation of "does"? Thanks a lot,[/nq]
No, it is phonetic, viz. an attempt to write exactly how this colloquialism sounds.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[nq:1]Hi, Is the sentence "What's that mean?" correct? I read it often. I've been taught that you can abbreviate "is" and "has" with 's. But neither seems to apply to the sentence. Is it by any chance an abbreviation of "does"? Thanks a lot, Maurizio[/nq]
Yes, that's right. An apostrophe can indicate missing letters, whatever they are.

[nq:2]Is the sentence "What's that mean?" correct? I read it ... by any chance an abbreviation of "does"? Thanks a lot,[/nq]
[nq:1]No, it is phonetic, viz. an attempt to write exactly how this colloquialism sounds.[/nq]
No??
Surely the colloquialism is an abbreviation of "what does (that mean)", and this is an accurate transcription of that colloquial abbrevation?

Cheers, Harv

[nq:2]No, it is phonetic, viz. an attempt to write exactly how this colloquialism sounds.[/nq]
[nq:1]Surely the colloquialism is an abbreviation of "what does (that mean)", and this is an accurate transcription of that colloquial abbrevation?[/nq]
This explanation would be stronger if we had
some phonetic evidence that people were meaning
to say "does" and believed their vocalised

[nq:2]Surely the colloquialism is an abbreviation of "what does (that mean)", and this is an accurate transcription of that colloquial abbrevation?[/nq]
[nq:1]This explanation would be stronger if we had some phonetic evidence that people were meaning to say "does" and believed their vocalised S was a conventional abbreviation but I doubt that we can get such evidence.[/nq]
Sorry; I've no

IMHO, people need not be conscious the actual word is "does", for this to be the right explanation. Look at it from a hystorical point of view: in origin, truncating "does" had to be a conscious decision. However, newborn children who learn the language hear this idiom, do not realize the logic behind it, and start using it as an ad-hoc construct. So the idiom propagates in time without people bei

[nq:2]Surely the colloquialism is an abbreviation of "what does (that mean)", and this is an accurate transcription of that colloquial abbrevation?[/nq]
[nq:1]This explanation would be stronger if we had some phonetic evidence that people were meaning to say "does" and believed ... a phonetic transcription of what people say not an abbreviation of something we did not actually hear them say.[/

[nq:2]Surely the colloquialism is an abbreviation of "what does (that mean)", and this is an accurate transcription of that colloquial abbrevation?[/nq]
[nq:1]This explanation would be stronger if we had some phonetic evidence that people were meaning to say "does" and believed their vocalised S was a conventional abbreviation but I doubt that we can get such evidence. It is because S is not[/

[nq:1]IMHO, people need not be conscious the actual word is "does", for this to be the right explanation. Look at ... using it as an ad-hoc construct. So the idiom propagates in time without people being conscious of the original logic.[/nq]
I agree with Harvey Van Sickle that if you were to ask a person who uses the expression "What's that mean?" to expand on the contraction, that person woul

[nq:1]you would have found it given as a contraction for "is," "was," "has," and "does." The example given for "does" ... want?" the "'s" is pronounced (s), but in "When's he want it?" and "Why's he want it?" it's pronounced (z).[/nq]
Mairzy doats and doesy doats and little lambsy divey. A kiddlee divey too, wouldn't you.
s/ meirman
Posting from alt.english.usage

If you are em