which was what she said was the right name

[Bambook]

We are reading the Llittle Mermaid with my kid. Here _https://www.homeenglish.ru/andersen_little_mermaid.htm
And came across with this sentance where, to my thinking, one "was", I made it bold, is not needed. Moreover I think it must not be there and used there mistakenly. Please comment.
"There was so much she wanted to know. Her sisters could not answer all her questions, so she asked her old grandmother, who knew about the "upper world," which was what she said was the right name for the countries above the sea."

 

[Tarheel]

It's perfectly fine.

 

[jutfrank]

It must be there. The sentence is ungrammatical without it. I can see though why you're having trouble parsing the sentence.

The pronoun which (referring to the name 'the upper world') is the subject of the bolded was.

The "upper world" was what she said was the right name for countries above the sea.

If I reorganise the idea more simply, it might help you see what's going on:

She said (that) the "upper world" was the right name for the countries above the sea.

 

[kttlt]

The sentence is ungrammatical without it.

Would it be accurate to rephrase it this way: "...who knew about the "upper world," which, according to her, was the right name for the countries above the sea."?

 

[Tarheel]

Yes. It's her version.

 

[jutfrank]

Would it be accurate to rephrase it this way: "...who knew about the "upper world," which, according to her, was the right name for the countries above the sea."?

Yes, that's right.

 

[Bambook]

The pronoun which (referring to the name 'the upper world') is the subject of the bolded was.

1. Eh, unfortunatelly I understand that. And still usage of the bolded "was" is not clear

She said (that) the "upper world" was the right name for the countries above the sea.

2. This, above, is also very clear.
3. What "Kttlt" wrote is also clear.
4. But the bolded "was" is still not clear. I understand that I lack some grammar knowledge. Please do not go to the trouble to explain me all. Otherwise I will absorb all your time. I dare ask you just some few more questions wich should help me to set my further investigation on the right course. So (and they are so bulky, I am sorry, but I could not make them shorter):
4.1. If I put it so: who knew about the "upper world," which as she said was the right name for the countries above the sea. - Is it correct in this way?
4.2. I percieve the phrase "which was what she said" as an extra information, and that is why it does not reqire "was".
4.3. And if I extract only "was" from the original phrase and it becomes "which what she said" than still remaining "what" plays the role of "as". Just as in my example in green. I hope "what" can play the role of "as".
5. But if I make an analysis of the original sentace, knowing now, thanks to you, that it is absolutelly correct, then I can explain the meaning of it to myself only in this way:
5.1. That "what she said" - is the first Objest and "the right name" - is the second Object.
5.2. And "which" which is "referring to the name 'the upper world'" links us to both Objects. In this way all things become clear to me. And grammatically clear as well. But kind of not natural for "Russian" ear.
5.3. So having two Objects is strange to me, especially in this sentance where the first Object is less important than the second. So I would modify the sentece by turning the first Object into an extra information just as in my example in green so to make it sound more natural for my ear .
Ehh, I am sorry, for so long a text. If you have not reached to this point and do not reply, no problem, and no offence I have exuhsted myself already, not to tell about you.

6. I am very thankful to you, I mean here all You who help out here, for going to the trouble to write so explicit, and not explicit, actually any explanations or comments. I know it does not come easy to reply to all questions comming from all the world. Every time I ask a question, and now as I am typing, I feel that I abuse your generosity, piling on you more and more question. Thank you for being so generous to exploit your time to help out here! And I, on my part, will try to refrain from asking too many questions.

 

[jutfrank]

4.1. If I put it so: who knew about the "upper world," which as she said was the right name for the countries above the sea. - Is it correct in this way?

No. If you remove the as, yes.

4.2. I percieve the phrase "which was what she said" as an extra information, and that is why it does not reqire "was".
4.3. And if I extract only "was" from the original phrase and it becomes "which what she said" than still remaining "what" plays the role of "as". Just as in my example in green. I hope "what" can play the role of "as".

No to all of that.

5. But if I make an analysis of the original sentace, knowing now, thanks to you, that it is absolutelly correct, then I can explain the meaning of it to myself only in this way:
5.1. That "what she said" - is the first Objest and "the right name" - is the second Object.

No.

5.2. And "which" which is "referring to the name 'the upper world'" links us to both Objects. In this way all things become clear to me. And grammatically clear as well. But kind of not natural for "Russian" ear.

I don't really understand what you're thinking here.

Every time I ask a question, and now as I am typing, I feel that I abuse your generosity, piling on you more and more question. Thank you for being so generous to exploit your time to help out here! And I, on my part, will try to refrain from asking too many questions.

No, problem. That's why we're here.

This is a very difficult grammatical structure to understand. The important thing is that you understand the meaning.