Am I missing something? How is this an adjective? "He's a quite man." "I feel quite today." DAVilla 16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It is just an adverb. Fixed. SemperBlotto 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we are missing one of the meanings of "quite". Can't it mean "distictly", "markedly", "a significant amount"? As in "I see quite a differece." " I lost quite a few.", "That is quite different." "That is quite another matter". Indeed the usage of "quite" in most (all?) the "derived terms" seems to be of this kind. JustPassing 21:46, 28 March 2009
We have that: "To a great extent or degree; very; very much; considerably." Equinox◑ 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not an interjection; it is an adverb. As with many words of many parts of speech it can constitute a prosentence, with numerous possible meanings depending on context, tone of voice, etc. Calling this an interjection distorts and debases the meaning of both interjection and part of speech, rendering both terms less useful for Wiktionary. DCDuringTALK 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep the section now marked as "interjection", with the part of speech "phrase" or the like. Similar entries: absolutely, exactly, right; less similar entries: I think so, I don't think so. The point is to document the pro-sentence meaning, attested by quotations. I agree that tagging this as "interjection" is an overload of the term "interjection", one that dilutes the category for interjections. --Dan Polansky 08:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you also keep a sense of me defined as "it's I that's here: used when responding to "who is it?" after knocking on a door", since it's a prosentence? Things don't deserve entries as prosentences merely by virtue of their being prosentences (and thus inherently non-SOP): they have to have meaning other than that implied by their parts in context. Quite means "I agree" in context because it means "exactly" as an adverb, not because that's some new meaning. Me means "it's I that's here" in context because it means "I" as a pronoun, not as some new meaning.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I probably would not keep me. The use of quite to mean I agree is peculiar to English as compared to Czech. The possibility of this use does not follow from the adverb definitions. The adverb definition that would be taken for the pro-sentence use would possibly be "To a great extent or degree; very; very much; considerably" (would it?), but you cannot use "considerably" as a pro-sentential "I agree", right? Neither can you use "rather" in this way, right? I agree that not every pro-sentential use should get an entry, or else most nouns would have pro-sentential entries, in Czech anyway. Only those pro-sentential uses should get an entry that are in some way unpredictable or peculiar to the language in question. --Dan Polansky 17:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The relevant sense is "exactly", which I think is supposed to fall under our first sense, "(manner)Completely; wholly; entirely; perfectly", but TBH I don't think that sense is very clearly expressed. —RuakhTALK 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sense removed.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there not a distinction between American and British usages, where Americans use it strictly synonymously with "very (much)", but British may mean either that, or, the very different "slightly", or "almost"? E.g. to an American ear, "I quite like him" strictly means "I like him very much", but a British speaker could intend "I like him only very little". —This comment was unsigned.
Why not take a crack at it? DCDuringTALK 16:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Could a note be added about how, for example, slightly different construction with "few" results in markedly different meaning: "quite few" (a very small number) vs. "quite a few", (MANY)? —This comment was unsigned.