Efforts by the Treasury to sell bonds due in more than 30 years would face obstacles as the Federal Reserve begins raising interest rates from a record low, according to dealers that underwrite U.S. debt sales.
The Treasury Department asked the Fed’s 22 primary dealers today to comment on demand for such securities. The question came amid a bond rally this year that surprised traders who began 2014 forecasting higher yields as the economy improved.
“They really have to think about what the demand is going to be like for it in the future,” said Thomas Simons, a government-debt economist in New York at the primary dealer Jefferies LLC. “That’s anybody’s guess.”
“It doesn’t sound like there would be tremendously aggressive demand” for 50-year securities in a period where yields are rising, Simons said.

-- Source

I'm wondering why the demand for it is split by is going to be like.

Would it be possible to use when in place of where there?

Are these just stylistic choices?

  • I suppose there's scope for opinions to differ, but I would say both the highlighted elements are examples of clumsy phrasing (not uncommon in spoken contexts), rather than defensible "stylistic choices". Jul 20, 2014 at 20:49
  • Nonetheless, it's perfectly standard.
    – user230
    Jul 21, 2014 at 0:59

3 Answers 3


1) The split in "demand for it" is stylistic. 2) It would be possible to use when in place of where in this case. I believe this is also stylistic. In which is also a nice option.


You wouldn't use this construct in a written context. It sounds like a verbatim quote. People are pretty lax about grammar when speaking informally.


The part you're asking about is rather deeply imbedded in a complement clause, so there is a lot going on there. It sometimes helps to look at it in a less complex context. So, consider 1) below, for example:

1) The demand for it is going to be high.

From this example, we can construct the question in 2):

2) What is the demand for it going to be?

This is a more academic style of talking. A more casual form occurs in 3):

3) What's the demand for it going to be like?

If we go back to 1), we can change the order of the noun-phrase constituents of the clause. Example 4) echoes 1) and example 5) shows that alternate constituent order.

4) The demand | for it | is going | to be high.

5) The demand | is going | to be high | for it.

In the text you quote, in the highly complicated sentence where the form in question occurs, the speaker/writer choose word order 5) over word order 4). Neither of these is more grammatical. It's hard to say why the speaker chose this form over the other, but as it stands there is no problem with what he says. It is quite grammatical.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .