# The Unnecessary “what” **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 27, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unnecessary-what/834606 "2019-05-27T19:55:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unnecessary-what/834606/1 "2019-05-27T19:55:40Z")
Maybe it’s just me but lately I’ve been noticing a lot of sentences worded like: > [@](#): > > “He was unwilling to pay more than what he had offered” when it seems the sentence would be perfectly clear written: > [@](#): > > “He was unwilling to pay more than he had offered” Is there some rule of grammar I’m missing in this case or perhaps this has always been convention and I’m just noticing it? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unnecessary-what/834606/2 "2019-05-27T20:22:16Z")
It’s not an error or rule. It’s a style. Sometimes people just prefer to write in inefficient ways. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unnecessary-what/834606/3 "2019-05-27T20:38:25Z")
One has a dependent clause with an explicit subject and the other has an implied subject. Neither is wrong. Just because a word might be unnecessary in some absolute sense doesn’t mean it should be discouraged. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2019, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unnecessary-what/834606/4 "2019-05-27T20:51:33Z")
I use ‘what’ and ‘that’ and some others too frequently just to make sure what I’m writing is clear. Some of it is from technical writing where pronouns can just confuse everything. Some of it is simply laziness or haste so I don’t have to start a whole sentence over again. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unnecessary-what/834606/5 "2019-05-28T03:18:20Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Is there some rule of grammar I’m missing in this case or perhaps this has always been convention and I’m just noticing it? What you’re overlooking is that you can only get away with this when the noun clause is the complement of a comparative structure, because _more than_ gets assimilated as the head word of the clause. If you are using the noun clause in a non-comparative sentence, I don’t think it would be considered grammatical, (though it may matter whether the _what_ is the subject or the object of the clause). Compare:\*A) We need to know more than **what** is happening right now. B) We need to know more than is happening right now. \*\*C) We don’t know **what** is happening right now. D) \*We don’t know is happening right now. \*You could say B, but I doubt you would omit the **what** as in example D and say that it is “unnecessary.” > [@Acsenray](#): > > One has a dependent clause with an explicit subject and the other has an implied subject. Yes, though it’s actually the _object_ of the noun clause. It makes a difference, because in _adjective_ clauses we often omit the object relative pronouns, but not not subject relative pronouns, and I believe what the OP is doing by omitting _what_ is a kind of mimicking of that pattern. Again, though, it only works in comparative structures.