Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
(Quoting:) ".....lower than what traders had expected...." The "what" there is in error. I forget the damn English grammar rule as to WHY it's incorrect, but it's BECOME common usage. Pity. What's the world coming to? Churchill. Now THERE'S a man with a REFINED command of the English tongue.
You know, I wouldn't have the slightest idea what the "rule" might be. Even in grammar school I fell asleep and garnered a well-deserved D- in dealing with this sort of stuff. But even an undereducated oaf such as myself suspects that the "what" is totally superfluous.
".....lower than traders had expected...." works just fine. Why the "what"??
Reply to @MaxBialystock: Perhaps, as an immigrant, I should not be the one arguing about the rule...
Consider the following two:
(1) ... lower than [x] (2) traders expected [x]
Combine (1) and (2)
(3) .... lower than [X] what traders expected.
In the article instead of referring to X directly as in (3), the author prefers to use an indirect reference, i.e. what traders expected and omits the value X.
One may argue instead of "what", perhaps the author should have used "which" or "that" in that construction but personally it is acceptable to me.
Comments
".....lower than traders had expected...." works just fine. Why the "what"??
Consider the following two:
(1) ... lower than [x]
(2) traders expected [x]
Combine (1) and (2)
(3) .... lower than [X] what traders expected.
In the article instead of referring to X directly as in (3), the author prefers to use an indirect reference, i.e. what traders expected and omits the value X.
One may argue instead of "what", perhaps the author should have used "which" or "that" in that construction but personally it is acceptable to me.