'Needs replaced'

[BreeVDKamp]

I see this all the time on here and it sounds soooo wrong but I think that I am wrong and it is correct.

Shouldn't it be 'needs to be replaced', or 'needs replacing'? Is it obscure and cumbersome sounding Proper English? What is the rule for using it?

There are other examples too but they don't spring to mind. 'Needs reviewed' etc.

No, 'needs washing' and 'needs to be washed' are exactly the same. It's 'needs washed' which is regional/colloquial.

Sorry, the 'no' was to pp not Trills.

I don't think the meaning is different though.

Its a Scottish thing I do it .

It is a regional thing. Easy enough to find out. I'm sorry but this sort of pedantry annoys me immensely!

It's not ghastly, ffs.

It is extremely prejudiced and ignorant to say it is ghastly.

I love a bit of regional dialect/speech - my friends are scottish and would say "Needs washed".

I'm SE London and would say that it's mostly teens that would say "let's go Nando's" instead of let's go TO Nando's.

But it's none of it's ghastly IMO, it would dull if we all spoke the same. I love languages and dialects and it's what makes us interesting I think.

innit

LOL

Behooven, needs washing sounds wrong to me too!

As others have said it's a Scottish thing and I say it sometimes, but mostly insert the "to be".

I was just wondering as never heard it in RL sorry if I offended anyone.

I hadn't heard this particular construction until we moved to Scotland, so I assumed it was a Scottish thing. I know it's not grammatically accurate, but that doesn't worry me when I hear it - though it would, if it was written.

You haven't offended me Bree, as you didn't say it was ghastly .

It is not just a Scottish thing.

My boyfriend and his family from Belfast all said it.

But Belfast has a large dose of Ulster Scots influence.

I like to hear it. I love the variety in English.

Apparently, it's also a regional thing in the USA too. languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3422

I also don't see why it needs to be described as ghastly. It's not in the version of English that I speak (and so does sound odd to my ear), but it's a perfectly well-formed variation.

Avoiding regions where it is used would be as odd as a Geordie refusing to go to southern England because southerners pronounce the word "bath" as "bah-th" etc.

Dad is right. DH is from Western NY/Western Pennsylvania; we visit there often. You hear it frequently.

'Needs washing' sounds dreadful to me, but I don't expect other people not to say it just because of that.

Could someone explain to me how 'needs washing' is grammatically the same as 'needs to be washed'? That they are both passive doesn't mean they are the same.

I think the pp meant that 'needs to be washed' and 'needs washing' meant the same, not that they were grammatically the same. I knew that 'needs washed' was regional, but I don't think I'd ever seen it written down until coming on Mn. I think I still find it disconcerting because of the combination of the present and past perfect tenses. I have to mentally supply a 'to be' in the middle.

Yep, definitely regional. I generally love hearing regional dialect - it's fascinating and makes English such a rich language. But I don't like lazy, incorrect language. I suppose there's a bit of overlap between the two though, and not everyone would always know the difference. Everyone has words and phrases which they find pleasing or grating - hence the very frequent 'which sayings make your teeth itch?' threads on here.
Not sure what my point is, but it would be nice if we were able to comment on language usage in a less judgemental way so as not to cause offence.

That last bit wasn't aimed at anyone in particular btw, I just meant that we should all mind how we talk about others' language use!

Yes, standard use in Scotland - the cat wants out!
The one that drives me nuts is have went or,equally, I seen.
Both set my teeth on edge.