Bill is quite happy ? It is quite happy that Bill is (X)
The sentence using the focus structure is ungrammatical.
'quite happy' is a subject complement, but it cannot be focused on by using the focus structure.
I want to know why... Is there a reasonable principle? If not, has it been used like that for a long time ?
Hoony Bill is quite happy ? It is quite happy that Bill is (X) This transformation won't work in the way that you seem to be implying: You can't use the pattern "It is Y that Bill is X" if Y is supposed to be an attribute of Bill's. On the other hand, perhaps you don't mean to imply that.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
HoonyBill is quite happy ? It is quite happy that Bill is (X)
This transformation won't work in the way that you seem to be implying: You can't use the pattern "It is Y that Bill is X" if Y is supposed to be an attribute of Bill's. On the other hand, perhaps you don't mean to imply that. Perhaps you are just asking why "It is quite happy that ~" does not wo
[1] Bill is quite happy.
[2] % It is quite happy [that Bill is].
Examples like [2] of an it-cleft construction with the adjective phrase "quite happy" as the foregrounded element seem odd and are only marginally acceptable for most speakers, probably due to the way the language has evolved.
Acceptable examples like It was green t
HoonyBill is quite happy ? It is quite happy that Bill is (X)
The sentence using the focus structure is ungrammatical.
'quite happy' is a subject complement, but it cannot be focused on by using the focus structure.
I want to know why... Is there a reasonable principle? If not, has it been used like that for a long time ?