247b. but if you want my opinion for what it ’ s worth I’d say she really was cut up
about Banks. (1941 Oellrichs, Murder makes us gay [COHA])
c. However, for what it is worth to you, I can say, at least, that she is vaporing
over no one else at the moment. (1956 Roberts, Boon island [COHA])
d. for what it ’ s worth , I can report that the place looked absolutely normal.
(1978 New Yorker [COHA])
While COHA indicates fl uctuating usage of for what it’s/ is worth (see
Figure 8.4 ), Google Ngram shows that the uncontracted form has declined
since the beginning of the twentieth century while the contracted form has
increased to a small extent (see Figure 8.5 ).
8.3.2.2 The Development of Parenthetical Uses. The dating estab-
lished in the previous section sees literal uses of for what it’s worth appearing
in the late eighteenth century (“buy/ sell it for what it’s worth”), followed by
literal and non- literal uses as a complement in the “take it for what it’s worth”
construction appearing in the early nineteenth century. The adjectival adjunct
use (“my opinion, for what it’s worth”) arises in the late nineteenth century,
and the parenthetical use in the early twentieth century.
The fact that adverbial adjunct uses with an explicit verb of communication
(“I tell you this for what it is worth that ...”) are rare and relatively late rules
this construction out as a possible source for parenthetical for what it’s worth.
The construction does not, therefore, derive from a full biclausal structure as
suggested for insubordinated clauses (see Section 8.2.3.1 ). Rather, it would
seem that both the complement form in the “take it for what it’s worth” con-
struction and the adjectival adjunct form “my opinion, for what it’s worth”
construction contribute to the rise in parenthetical usage. As discussed above in
Section 8.3.1.2 under synchronic sources, development from “take it for what
it’s worth” involves deletion of the “take it” element. This element is highly
deletable because it can be assumed in the context of discourse that a speaker
utters something in order for the hearer to “take it” or “reject it.” Also, in these
cases, the it in “for what it’s worth” is very weakly referential, as it often refers
very generally to the content of the following or preceding clause. The adjec-
tival adjunct form itself is ripe for reanalysis, especially if for what it is worth
(like adjectival adjuncts generally) is moved to sentence- initial position. A sen-
tence such as the following:
For what it is worth , nearly everyone had a grievance against Time
magazine (1957 Nation [COHA])allows two interpretations. If for what it is worth is seen as a modifi er of “griev-
ance,” then the sentence is understood to mean: ‘Nearly everyone had a griev-
ance for whatever value that grievance might be.’ However, if the construction
8.3 For What It’s Worth