Kannst du vielleicht ein paar Beispielsätze nennen.
Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, ob ich verstehe, was du meinst. Aber als ich deine Anfrage gelesen habe musste ich an ein syntaktisches Phänomen denken, das sich preposition stranding nennt.
Ich habe so eine Ahnung, das deine Frage damit was zu tun haben könnte. Vielleicht reden wir auch aneinander vorbei.
Hier der wikipedia- Link zum preposition stranding:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preposition_Stranding

Ich denke an Sätze, in denen das what von dem for durch preposition stranding getrennt ist, was dann u.U.anders übersetzt wird.

Wenn ich so nachdenke, kann ich mir aber durchaus auch Kontexte vorstellen, in denen "what for" auch mit wofür übersetzt werden kann...

Falls wir aneinander vorbeireden, sage ich fürs erste mal nicht mehr :-)

Danke für deine Mühe, obwohl ich mich offenbar nicht klar genug ausgedrückt habe!

Noch ein Versuch:

Ich meine "What for?" als vollständigen Fragesatz. Mann, ich bin so schlecht im Beispiele-Erfinden... aber ich sage, dass ich irgendwas zu tun plane, und jemand fragt mich: "What for?" - "Wozu?" = "Zu welchem Zweck?"

Mir scheint es zumindest zu, als hätte der Satz "For what?" eine leicht andere Bedeutung - wie eben auf Deutsch "Wofür?" und "Wozu?".

Ich wüsste nun gerne, ob das so stimmt.
Und wie das bei anderen Präpositionen ist, wenn ein Fragesatz, möglicherweise wenig elegant, nur aus dem Fragewort "what" und der Präposition besteht (weil der rest sich aus dem zuvor Gesagten ergibt).

Heißt es nicht z. B. "What about?", aber "With what?"

Kann sein, dass ich vollkommen falsch liege, denn so ganz durchblicke ich das Phänomen nicht (wie man merkt).
Kurz: ich glaube, meine Frage fällt schon unter "Preposition Standing", aber die Antwort habe ich in dem Artikel nicht gefunden. (Interessant war der Link aber trotzdem, danke!)

Ich hoffe, jemand kann ein bisschen Klarheit schaffen...

Der einzige Unterschied der mir einfaellt ist, dass "what for" richtig ist und sich "for what" falsch anhoert.

I'm also not sure what the question is. This kind of thing perhaps? You're asking if there is a difference in meaning between the first and second question in each set?

A1. I saw Joe yesterday. We had a long talk.
A2.1. What about?
A2.2. About what?

B1. I think I'll mow the lawn this afternoon.
B2.1. What with? The lawn mower's broken.
B2.2. With what? The lawn mower's broken.


C1. I'm going to drive over to Amy's.
C2.1. What for?
C2.2. For what?

Genau, SD3! Das ist es!

Ich darf also aus deinen Beispielen schließen
- dass zwischen "For what?" und "What for?" kein Bedeutungsunterschied besteht, sondern dass sie komplett austauschbar sind?
- dass beide Varianten richtig sind?
- dass das Wörterbuch eventuell Unrecht hat? Siehe Wörterbuch: what for
- und dass die Umstellung mit "with" auch machbar ist? (Für mich klingt "What with? irgendwie komisch...)

Wir kommen der Sache näher...

"What for?" is a short version of a sentence starting "What" and ending "for":

A: I've bought a big piece of wood.
B: What for?
(What have you bought it for?)

A: I often go to the woods in autumn.
B: What for?
(What do you go there for?)

In the second example, you could answer "For wood" or you could answer "To look at the autumn leaves" - the question could mean "What do you go there to get?" or "Why do you go there?".

In BE, the wording "What about?", "What with?", "What on?" and "What for?" are much, much more common - nix mit komisch. Turning it round and asking the other way puts the stress on the last word - for WHAT? - and makes you sound sharper or sarcastic, as if you expect an answer you won't like: in A2 above the asker thinks the other person talked to Joe about something he won't like; in B2 above the speaker is being sarcastic and sharp, and in C2 above the speaker thinks there is no reason to go to Amy's.

[edit] I've just F5ed and seen CM2DD has given an answer, but I'll post my thoughts anyway. I don't think they are very different.
-------------------------------
Now, hang on a minute! I first wanted to know what the question was. I haven't given an answer yet. :-)

This is my personal opinion:

In A and B, I see practically no difference in meaning. You could perhaps argue that the second options (about what, with what) are slightly more emphatic, but I'm not even totally sure about that - and the more I say them, the less sure I am.

C is different. "For what?" in reply to my question sounds wrong to me (Habs was also sceptical). You could, however, say "Why?" and that would mean the same as "What for?"

I think "For what?" can be used in other contexts. For example:
- I need to use the larger shovel.
- For what?
- For moving some of the earth from the flower bed to the vegetable garden.

It sounds a bit colloquial but directs attention to a specific purpose. It suggests (to me, at least) that the person asking the question wants to know exactly why the larger shovel is needed.

That's the best I can do at the moment. Maybe someone else will have some better ideas.

the person asking the question wants to know exactly why the larger shovel is needed.
Exactly: the word order "For what?" sounds very probing and contentious, as if the asker suspects something secret is happening, or suspects that you don't have a good reason at all. "So what exactly are you going to use it for, then? Eh? Eh?"

I agree that they're often interchangeable, but there's also the added complication that 'What for?' colloquially can just mean 'Why?'

A: I'm going to go get the car washed.
B: What for? Didn't you just wash it last week? Isn't it supposed to rain today?

That doesn't mean 'What are you going to use it for?', it just means 'Why?' So in that case, you probably wouldn't use 'For what?'

There are also cases where 'For what?' can mean specifically 'For what purpose?'

A: Can I borrow that glass paperweight of yours?
B: Why?
A: I just need it for something. I'll bring it right back.
B: For what?
A: Well, I want to see if I can pound on that valve under the sink to get it open.
B: No way! You're not going to crack my paperweight pounding on a pipe with it. Go find a hammer.

In that case, where you're referring to 'for something' in the previous sentence, you probably wouldn't say 'What for?'

*f5* And this example also includes the suspicious overtone CM2DD mentioned in #8; that's a good point.


A1. I saw Joe yesterday. We had a long talk.
A2.1. What about? (ugs.)
A2.2. About what?

B1. I think I'll mow the lawn this afternoon.
B2.1. What with? The lawn mower's broken. (ugs.)
B2.2. With what? The lawn mower's broken.

The difference I see there is that the (2) answers are more standard, the (1) answers more colloquial. But both are used and are perfectly acceptable.

#9 When you say "standard" hm do you mean standard as in "taught in school" or standard as in "common", or both? In BE the "For what?" forms are almost entirely used with a sarcastic sound, and "What for?" used as the everyday way to ask a siimple question.

@4+6: Im Beispielsatz C2.2 würde "For what?" mMn eine gewisse Zwecklosigkeit des Unternehmens implizieren.

re #10: Just standard as in normal, default, the opposite of colloquial/umgangssprachlich. In SD3's examples, 'What with?' and 'What about?' are (to my ears) more typical of a casual conversation with friends or family, but not as suitable for a more serious conversation. That is, the default is with the preposition before the object; inverting the order makes it more casual.

To me, either of those could be sarcastic, but it would depend more on the tone of voice.

re #11: Hmm. Not sure about Zwecklosigkeit, but I do see a difference in meaning. My German may not be quite right here, but something like this?

C1. I'm going to drive over to Amy's.
C2.1. What for? (= Warum?)
C2.2. For what? (= Um etwas zu holen? Was denn?)

#12 OK, then it sounds like there's a bit of a difference; in BE insisting on "With what?" might be seen as pedantic or old-fashioned (though doubtless those who do insist on it see things otherwise!). Most BE dictionaries quote "What for?" and don't mention "For what?".

But as I tried to explain, there's a possible difference in meaning between 'What for?' (= Why? Why would you want to do that?) and 'For what?' (= For what purpose? In order to do what?). 'What for?' and 'For what?' are sometimes interchangeable, but not always.

Whereas in SD3's other examples, 'What with?/With what?' and 'What about?/About what?' mean the same thing; it's just (to my ears) a difference in register.

orange, I hope that's what you wanted to know. Sorry not to be able to answer in terms of 'wofür' vs. 'wozu,' but I'm not entirely sure I understand that difference. I have trouble with things like 'weswegen' and 'weil' and so on, and I try not to use too many 'wo-' words because I'm not sure I have them all straight. So now we could do this all again with examples in German ... (-;

#15 In BE, "What for?" can mean both "For what purpose?" or "For what reason?" while "For what?" is more likely to mean either "For what purpose?" or specifically "To get what?" (I think; it's hard to think of examples, as I wouldn't use it that often):

a I've bought a big piece of wood.
b What for? (Possibly: For what?)
a To fix the door.

a I just threw out all my clothes.
b What for? (Here "For what?" doesn't sound right.)
a None of them fitted any more.

Hm, you're saying that to you, "What for?" would be wrong in the first one, right?

Danke euch allen für die vielen Antworten! Jede einzelne war aufschlussreich. Danke! :)


Nur noch als kurze Anmerkung zu "wofür"/"wozu":
Meines Erachtens ist "Wofür?" eine Frage, auf die man eine Antwort mit "für" erwartet".
-> "Wofür sind die Kerzen?" - "Für den Adventskranz." "Wofür?" ist das sächliche Pendant zu "Für wen?".
"Wozu?" fragt nach dem Zweck; die Antwort beginnt idealerweise mit "Um... zu".
-> "Wozu brauchst du das Geld?" - "Um Kerzen zu kaufen."
Und "Warum?" ist streng genommen etwas vollkommen anderes, denn es fragt nach dem Grund/der Ursache, nicht nach dem Zweck/der Absicht.
Allerdings muss man dazusagen, dass die meisten Deutschen (mich eingeschlossen) im alltäglichen Sprachgebrauch "warum" und "wozu" gelegentlich vermischen. Deshalb war wohl auch die Frage nicht so leicht zu beantworten. ;)