Hi... just a random thought – I've neither heard nor read anyone using this construction ever before (possessive that's). Not that that means so much in itself, but I'm curious about your responses to Kathleen's question concerning the form being a regionalism.

 

John

 

 

 

Here's a further comment by Larry Horn on ADS-L
>
> It's actually pretty understandable if you grant the confusion between the interrogative "whose" and the relative "whose". After all, the standard English pattern is pretty weird:

> Whose leg is broken?
> Ken's
> *The dining table's vs. the man/table whose leg is broken
>
> So now for some it's
>
> the man whose leg is broken (or perhaps "who's leg")
> the table that's leg is broken
>
> The difference between the interrogative and relative uses of
> "whose" is certainly curious.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Ward
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: "thats" for "whose"
>
> Is there any indication that possessive "that's" is a
> regionalism? This conversation has made me realize that do
> this quite naturally in casual conversation; in fact, I caught
> myself saying the equivalent of
>
>
> This isn't the room that's wall needs painting.
>
> this morning. (Topic changed to protect the guilty.)
>
> My native dialect is a pretty recessive one (Boston) and I often
> notice odd differences.
>
> Kathleen Ward
>
>
>
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
> select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>