More literal but not better. In BrE, at least, we are more likely to say "What's the weather like?", I think.
I don't think that sentence makes sense, unless you're asking what the word "weather" means...
yes, that is what it means. i think the sentence what is love appears in the course in this sense already so I expected what is weather to be accepted as an answer to this question as it is so similiar, but wonder if there is a reason it would not be asked like this.
ah, just had another question using czym for what is _abstract_noun. would what is weather be cyzm jest pagoda?
co to jest pogoda? or "czym jest pogoda"
"co to jest..."- is a question for easy definition (like in school)
"czym jest ...." is a more philosophical question about a nature of "weather"
from what I just read czym is more for classifying which category something belongs to so I think co to jest is the one for the sense I was after.
What's the difference between "co to jest" and "co to na"? (in a past lesson there was "co to na kształt?")
EDIT: Whoops, yes, "co to za kstałt". Dziękuję!
That was probably "Co to za kształt?"
Co to jest = What is it?, so "What is X" - asking for definitions.
Like: Co to jest "kwadrat"? = What is "a square"?
"Co to za kształt?" = "What kind of shape is that?"
Although, "what is the weather like" would be OK (in English). (Maybe already accepted)
So how come it marks "What's the weather like" as incorrect? And gives "What is the weather like" as the acceptable answer.
"what is" and "what's" are supposed to be accepted interchangeably