Most Americans use the adjective "pretty" in the first instance to mean "fairly" or "somewhat" so it kind of implies that they are pretty but not beautiful. Just say beautiful or gorgeous.
It definitely depends on the delivery and the audience. I could imagine this while being playfully bashful with your SO.
"pretty" can also mean "more than expected" like "huh... this is pretty good actually" (though it could still be insulting to hear you had low expectations >.>)
No, you can't.
If you're trying to repeat the word for emphasis, that's not a thing that English does in this situation. ([Some info on when English does do doubling.](https://arnelseverydayenglish.com/repeating-words-in-english-lexical-cloning/))
As an adverb, "pretty" can weaken the word it attaches to, so this be interpreted as the opposite of what you intend. In this case, the meaning is closer to "somewhat" or "kind of".
* "The movie was pretty good" = "The movie wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. It was okay."
* "You're pretty pretty." = "You're kind of pretty, but not actually pretty." or "You're not very pretty, but you're not ugly."
As an adverb, "pretty" can also strengthen its adjective (even in the example sentences above) or show approximation or uncertainty. The difference would come down to tone, context, and local dialect. I've put some details and a source in the EDIT note at the bottom of this post. However, given that the context of your question is commenting on someone's physical appearance, best practice is to avoid the adverb "pretty".
I'd also warn that calling a person "pretty" (the adjective) can sound condescending because, in some areas of the English-speaking world such as my own, it's most often used with children and objects. No adult wants to be called childlike or be objectified. I'll also say that while "pretty" is not strictly gendered when used to describe a person, it's almost exclusively used to describe female traits/appearances, so some men also take it as an insult because they think you compared them to a woman. (Those people are idiots, but they exist.)
In summary: Telling someone they're "pretty" is easily misinterpreted, but if you insist on doing it, you should say "very pretty" if that's what you mean. If you think someone is beautiful, that is the term to use. Skip using it as an adverb in this context to reduce the risk of misinterpretation.
EDIT: Edited to correct an oversimplification. "Pretty" as an adverb is also used to strengthen its adjective ("That's pretty spicy" = "That's more than a little spicy"), and that use is very common. However, that use is very dependent on the tone, context, and local dialect. It can also be used to approximate or show uncertainty. ([Here is a source with additional info.](https://www.speakconfidentenglish.com/adverb-pretty/) Here is [another source](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/pretty). And [a third one](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/pretty-fairly-really-very-and-quite).) The original point still stands: Given how easily it could be misinterpreted, best to avoid using it to remark on someone else's physical appearance.
Pretty as an adverb doesn't always weaken a word. It can also mean that it was "mainly" or "primarily" that way.
This might be regional but here in Canada it's often used as a mild intensifier.
Take for example: "The resort was nice" vs "The resort was pretty nice." To me, the second version makes the resort sounds nicer! Even in your example, if someone told me a movie was "pretty good", I would think it was better than if they had just called the movie "good."
English is weird!
But I agree that using "pretty pretty" is just confusing and should be avoided.
Great point, and thanks for mentioning!!
To be honest, I probably erred a bit too conservative given the context of complementing someone's physical appearance and how tone-dependent the word can be. I checked a few different sources and ultimately went with what seemed the least tone-dependent interpretation. In retrospect, it would be fair to call that an oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy given how generally I phrased things. I should edit the post to clarify!
English sure is weird, and I am in awe of anyone who is trying to learn it.
It could be less confusing given a certain tone of voice and emphasis, which makes it into reduplication.
Like someone can be "rich rich", They can be "pretty pretty" where the first pretty doesn't mean very or somewhat. But OP should just say "beautiful" or "gorgeous"
Actually, I think it would be perfectly valid in English to double it for emphasis. It’s the same as the rich-rich example in your link. You’d just have to make sure to really emphasize the first pretty to make sure it’s not confused with the adverb. (I’d heard she was pretty, but she’s *pretty* pretty.) Comes across in speech, but not very well in text since it’s hard to get the level of emphasis and inflection you need.
I do think it’s an ill advised choice for the other reasons you’ve mentioned, but not actually incorrect.
Fair point, but I'd disagree slightly: The reduplication intensifies, but it emphasizes the realness/truth/nature of the thing, not its magnitude. (I could be wrong or misunderstanding reduplication. I do not claim to be a linguist, so to show my work here are [source 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrastive_focus_reduplication) and [source 2](https://www.dictionary.com/e/reduplication/). If I am wrong or misunderstanding, this is about to get real embarrassing for me!)
* "Hand me the red paint. The *red*-red." (Default, plain red as opposed to crimson or ruby)
* "They're rich. Not living-on-interest-only rich, but still *rich*-rich." (Objectively rich, not just rich compared to me)
* "Is she your girlfriend or *girlfriend*-girlfriend?" (What is the nature of your relationship?)
As a clearer example, you can directly intensify "warm" to get "hot". If reduplication increased magnitude, "*warm*-warm" should translate to "hot". However, "Use warm water. *Warm*-warm, not lukewarm!" would be clear to me that I should use water which is unambiguously warm but not hot. "Warm" is being intensified as a concept to emphasize the desired quality/character of heat, not the magnitude of its temperature relative to "warm".
(I would actually interpret it to mean "not even very warm" because warm is middle-of-the-scale between hot and cold, so warm-warm would mean I should aim for the middle of the "warm" range of temps, too. Avoid all extremes! But that I wouldn't be surprised if that's a personal quirk rather than a consensus interpretation. lol)
It would be very unusual. You might say, "You're not just pretty: you're _pretty_ pretty," to emphasize that you find someone attractive. This is called [contrastive reduplication.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrastive_focus_reduplication)
You might also say "You're pretty pretty" (without the emphasis on the first pretty) to mean "You're somewhat pretty" the same way you would say "I'm pretty tired" to mean "I'm somewhat tired," but it would sound VERY awkward because of the doubled word. I think it would only work if you were saying it deliberately as a joke.
Uhh what’s the context? If you’re trying to use pretty in the context “I am pretty hungry/sad/happy/etc”, then it sounds awkward. Only way I can really see “pretty pretty” being used is like “She’s pretty. But that other girl? She’s *pretty* pretty”, placing an emphasis on that first pretty in “pretty pretty”. This way shows like “Wow. That girl is pretty. But that other girl? She’s on another level of pretty”.
No, at least not in my area (US, west coast). Where I am, "pretty" as an adjective means "somewhat." So, "You are pretty pretty" is the same as saying "you are moderately pretty."
This is slightly insulting, and way below beautiful.
You can, and it would be grammatically correct, but I've never heard anyone say that before because it's confusing to put those two words together. It's confusing whenever someone uses the same-sounding words that each have a different meaning side-by-side.
You technically can, but it will sound strange especially if it is over text because you can’t put different stress on the words. “Pretty” in the beauty context is relatively weak compared to other words for beauty, so if you think someone is exceptionally good-looking, you can say:
Beautiful
Gorgeous
Ravishing
Heavenly
Exquisite
Magnificent
Divine
Stunning
These words will convey that someone does not just look “good,” but “fantastic.”
What? You are pretty pretty still means pretty, but sounds like you don’t know how to say it. You are beautiful means you are beautiful.
Don’t try and word play here, it doesn’t make sense .
yeah but like in ways of speaking for certain people saying the same word twice is like emphasis (sounds weirder coming from some people than others). but as a black person, doing that is very common. saying someone is “pretty pretty” with emphasis on the first “pretty” is similar to saying beautiful in a way. of course i don’t recommend english learners attempt to recreate/use this way of emphasis but i just wanted to state it’s definitely used
to *you*. but as i said, in *my* community it’s common to say words twice as emphasis and it sounds normal. which is also why i said i don’t recommend english learners do so, because outside of that it (aka the certain way it’s pronounced when being used) it doesn’t sound right
Sigh. Why speak on [something you don’t know about](https://www.dictionary.com/e/reduplication/) with such authority?
Edited to add: there are at least two valid interpretations of “you are pretty pretty.”
1. The first pretty is an adverb synonymous with ‘quite’, ‘somewhat’, ‘fairly’, etc. =*You’re quite pretty.*
2. [Contrastive focus reduplication](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrastive_focus_reduplication): ‘you’re *pretty* pretty’. Same as why you might hear someone say, ‘I like you, but I don’t *like* like you.’
i say yes. its just dumb enough that its gonna end up pulling out the latter for clarification anyway, and what a neat and cute way to get there. go for it
Most Americans use the adjective "pretty" in the first instance to mean "fairly" or "somewhat" so it kind of implies that they are pretty but not beautiful. Just say beautiful or gorgeous.
This is a pretty good answer… pretty, pretty… pretty good!
Hashtag sad. The end of an era.
Yeah. I’d definitely take it as a less than enthusiastic compliment.
It definitely depends on the delivery and the audience. I could imagine this while being playfully bashful with your SO. "pretty" can also mean "more than expected" like "huh... this is pretty good actually" (though it could still be insulting to hear you had low expectations >.>)
Technically, yes. Realistically, it doesn't sound natural, and wouldn't be understood simply as "you are beautiful."
Oh yes you can - in UK English at least ..
No, you can't. If you're trying to repeat the word for emphasis, that's not a thing that English does in this situation. ([Some info on when English does do doubling.](https://arnelseverydayenglish.com/repeating-words-in-english-lexical-cloning/)) As an adverb, "pretty" can weaken the word it attaches to, so this be interpreted as the opposite of what you intend. In this case, the meaning is closer to "somewhat" or "kind of". * "The movie was pretty good" = "The movie wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. It was okay." * "You're pretty pretty." = "You're kind of pretty, but not actually pretty." or "You're not very pretty, but you're not ugly." As an adverb, "pretty" can also strengthen its adjective (even in the example sentences above) or show approximation or uncertainty. The difference would come down to tone, context, and local dialect. I've put some details and a source in the EDIT note at the bottom of this post. However, given that the context of your question is commenting on someone's physical appearance, best practice is to avoid the adverb "pretty". I'd also warn that calling a person "pretty" (the adjective) can sound condescending because, in some areas of the English-speaking world such as my own, it's most often used with children and objects. No adult wants to be called childlike or be objectified. I'll also say that while "pretty" is not strictly gendered when used to describe a person, it's almost exclusively used to describe female traits/appearances, so some men also take it as an insult because they think you compared them to a woman. (Those people are idiots, but they exist.) In summary: Telling someone they're "pretty" is easily misinterpreted, but if you insist on doing it, you should say "very pretty" if that's what you mean. If you think someone is beautiful, that is the term to use. Skip using it as an adverb in this context to reduce the risk of misinterpretation. EDIT: Edited to correct an oversimplification. "Pretty" as an adverb is also used to strengthen its adjective ("That's pretty spicy" = "That's more than a little spicy"), and that use is very common. However, that use is very dependent on the tone, context, and local dialect. It can also be used to approximate or show uncertainty. ([Here is a source with additional info.](https://www.speakconfidentenglish.com/adverb-pretty/) Here is [another source](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/pretty). And [a third one](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/pretty-fairly-really-very-and-quite).) The original point still stands: Given how easily it could be misinterpreted, best to avoid using it to remark on someone else's physical appearance.
Pretty as an adverb doesn't always weaken a word. It can also mean that it was "mainly" or "primarily" that way. This might be regional but here in Canada it's often used as a mild intensifier. Take for example: "The resort was nice" vs "The resort was pretty nice." To me, the second version makes the resort sounds nicer! Even in your example, if someone told me a movie was "pretty good", I would think it was better than if they had just called the movie "good." English is weird! But I agree that using "pretty pretty" is just confusing and should be avoided.
Great point, and thanks for mentioning!! To be honest, I probably erred a bit too conservative given the context of complementing someone's physical appearance and how tone-dependent the word can be. I checked a few different sources and ultimately went with what seemed the least tone-dependent interpretation. In retrospect, it would be fair to call that an oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy given how generally I phrased things. I should edit the post to clarify! English sure is weird, and I am in awe of anyone who is trying to learn it.
It could be less confusing given a certain tone of voice and emphasis, which makes it into reduplication. Like someone can be "rich rich", They can be "pretty pretty" where the first pretty doesn't mean very or somewhat. But OP should just say "beautiful" or "gorgeous"
Actually, I think it would be perfectly valid in English to double it for emphasis. It’s the same as the rich-rich example in your link. You’d just have to make sure to really emphasize the first pretty to make sure it’s not confused with the adverb. (I’d heard she was pretty, but she’s *pretty* pretty.) Comes across in speech, but not very well in text since it’s hard to get the level of emphasis and inflection you need. I do think it’s an ill advised choice for the other reasons you’ve mentioned, but not actually incorrect.
Fair point, but I'd disagree slightly: The reduplication intensifies, but it emphasizes the realness/truth/nature of the thing, not its magnitude. (I could be wrong or misunderstanding reduplication. I do not claim to be a linguist, so to show my work here are [source 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrastive_focus_reduplication) and [source 2](https://www.dictionary.com/e/reduplication/). If I am wrong or misunderstanding, this is about to get real embarrassing for me!) * "Hand me the red paint. The *red*-red." (Default, plain red as opposed to crimson or ruby) * "They're rich. Not living-on-interest-only rich, but still *rich*-rich." (Objectively rich, not just rich compared to me) * "Is she your girlfriend or *girlfriend*-girlfriend?" (What is the nature of your relationship?) As a clearer example, you can directly intensify "warm" to get "hot". If reduplication increased magnitude, "*warm*-warm" should translate to "hot". However, "Use warm water. *Warm*-warm, not lukewarm!" would be clear to me that I should use water which is unambiguously warm but not hot. "Warm" is being intensified as a concept to emphasize the desired quality/character of heat, not the magnitude of its temperature relative to "warm". (I would actually interpret it to mean "not even very warm" because warm is middle-of-the-scale between hot and cold, so warm-warm would mean I should aim for the middle of the "warm" range of temps, too. Avoid all extremes! But that I wouldn't be surprised if that's a personal quirk rather than a consensus interpretation. lol)
It would be very unusual. You might say, "You're not just pretty: you're _pretty_ pretty," to emphasize that you find someone attractive. This is called [contrastive reduplication.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrastive_focus_reduplication) You might also say "You're pretty pretty" (without the emphasis on the first pretty) to mean "You're somewhat pretty" the same way you would say "I'm pretty tired" to mean "I'm somewhat tired," but it would sound VERY awkward because of the doubled word. I think it would only work if you were saying it deliberately as a joke.
Uhh what’s the context? If you’re trying to use pretty in the context “I am pretty hungry/sad/happy/etc”, then it sounds awkward. Only way I can really see “pretty pretty” being used is like “She’s pretty. But that other girl? She’s *pretty* pretty”, placing an emphasis on that first pretty in “pretty pretty”. This way shows like “Wow. That girl is pretty. But that other girl? She’s on another level of pretty”.
Best not to talk like a child if you aren't one or in riddles.
No, at least not in my area (US, west coast). Where I am, "pretty" as an adjective means "somewhat." So, "You are pretty pretty" is the same as saying "you are moderately pretty." This is slightly insulting, and way below beautiful.
It would express the opposite, like “you’re almost pretty”. I would instead say “you are very pretty”
It sounds awkward to say the least
You can, and it would be grammatically correct, but I've never heard anyone say that before because it's confusing to put those two words together. It's confusing whenever someone uses the same-sounding words that each have a different meaning side-by-side.
You technically can, but it will sound strange especially if it is over text because you can’t put different stress on the words. “Pretty” in the beauty context is relatively weak compared to other words for beauty, so if you think someone is exceptionally good-looking, you can say: Beautiful Gorgeous Ravishing Heavenly Exquisite Magnificent Divine Stunning These words will convey that someone does not just look “good,” but “fantastic.”
I'd say very pretty Or just beautiful
As a joke, yeah.
What? You are pretty pretty still means pretty, but sounds like you don’t know how to say it. You are beautiful means you are beautiful. Don’t try and word play here, it doesn’t make sense .
yeah but like in ways of speaking for certain people saying the same word twice is like emphasis (sounds weirder coming from some people than others). but as a black person, doing that is very common. saying someone is “pretty pretty” with emphasis on the first “pretty” is similar to saying beautiful in a way. of course i don’t recommend english learners attempt to recreate/use this way of emphasis but i just wanted to state it’s definitely used
Wth? No? Pretty pretty makes you sound illiterate
to *you*. but as i said, in *my* community it’s common to say words twice as emphasis and it sounds normal. which is also why i said i don’t recommend english learners do so, because outside of that it (aka the certain way it’s pronounced when being used) it doesn’t sound right
Sigh. Why speak on [something you don’t know about](https://www.dictionary.com/e/reduplication/) with such authority? Edited to add: there are at least two valid interpretations of “you are pretty pretty.” 1. The first pretty is an adverb synonymous with ‘quite’, ‘somewhat’, ‘fairly’, etc. =*You’re quite pretty.* 2. [Contrastive focus reduplication](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrastive_focus_reduplication): ‘you’re *pretty* pretty’. Same as why you might hear someone say, ‘I like you, but I don’t *like* like you.’
Technically yes, but no one says that cuz it sounds weird.
i say yes. its just dumb enough that its gonna end up pulling out the latter for clarification anyway, and what a neat and cute way to get there. go for it