Is this Standard English?
"It's a pretty one that, isn't it?"
"It's a pretty one that, isn't it?"
"It's a pretty one that, isn't it?"
That's not a natural sentence in my dialect (here in Massachusetts), and I don't think I've heard any constructions like that in North America. But perhaps it's natural in British English?
I would naturally say, "That's a pretty one, isn't it?"
I would naturally say, "That's a pretty one, isn't it?"
It is right dislocation, which is spoken usage only (or very rarely informal written).
<Is this Standard English?
"It's a pretty one that, isn't it?" >
Yes, it is. It's standard spoken British English.
"It's a pretty one that, isn't it?" >
Yes, it is. It's standard spoken British English.
>It is right dislocation,>
<<What does that mean?>>
The original sentence would be: "That's a pretty one, isn't it?"
The constituent "that" is moved to the right, hence the name "right dislocation". This structure is often used when you want to clarify something. "It's a pretty one" can refer to anything, but you clearly tell (and you might accompany your speech by pointing at the object) which one exactly you are talking about by adding "that".
<<What does that mean?>>
The original sentence would be: "That's a pretty one, isn't it?"
The constituent "that" is moved to the right, hence the name "right dislocation". This structure is often used when you want to clarify something. "It's a pretty one" can refer to anything, but you clearly tell (and you might accompany your speech by pointing at the object) which one exactly you are talking about by adding "that".
<The original sentence would be: "That's a pretty one, isn't it?" >
Why couldn't the original be "It's a pretty one, isn't it?"?
Why couldn't the original be "It's a pretty one, isn't it?"?
<"It's a pretty one" can refer to anything, >
Not if both speakers are looking at the same object.
Not if both speakers are looking at the same object.
<<Not if both speakers are looking at the same object.>>
Of course. I meant the utterance itself, without the circumstances. Besides, placing "that" there gives more emphasis to your statement.
<<Why couldn't the original be "It's a pretty one, isn't it?"?>>
It could be the original sentence, too.
Of course. I meant the utterance itself, without the circumstances. Besides, placing "that" there gives more emphasis to your statement.
<<Why couldn't the original be "It's a pretty one, isn't it?"?>>
It could be the original sentence, too.