The demise of “to be” before verbs

[Ted22]

This is something I never came across in my first 30+ years of life, but now in the last couple of years it seems to be everywhere!

”He needs rescued” is an example I just saw. Instead of “He needs to be rescued.”

”It needs washed”

“The cat needs fed”

Etc.

Has anyone else noticed an increase in this? Surely “needs to be” OR “the cat needs feeding” is correct.

I am sure that this has always existed in certain regions, but is it now increasingly used across the UK?

But using washing or feeding imply something that needs to happen in the future. Using washed or fed implies something that's already happened. This is why it doesn't make sense.

No it doesn't. Washing is present tense, not future. I don't like either tbh, but "needs washed" at least makes some sense as a contraction of "needs to be washed". Needs washing makes no sense at all.

washing can be used as part of the present - he is washing. Bit not only present - he will be washing, he was washing, has been washing, will have been washing...
washed is also flexible, though not as much unless you go passive. He washed, he has washed, he had washed, but it will be washed, it is washed, it has been washed, it had been washed, it will have been washed.

It needs washing, it needs to be washed, it needs washed all work.

Agree they're all fine informally, and all will be understood, but I just find it strange that some are insisting that one of "needs washing" and "needs washed" is fine and the other is wrong. They're both technically wrong! Just one or the other is more familiar to some.

@EBearhug I'm struggling to see what's technically wrong with 'it needs washing'. To me, washing is a procedure that this thing needs to undergo. Would you say that 'this food needs cooking', 'that house needs decorating', 'my hair needs washing' are all equally wrong? I'd really like to understand this so I'd be grateful - thanks!

There isn't anything wrong with it.

The wonderful thing about English (and infuriating for learners) is there are always different ways of saying the same thing. And also, saying exactly the same thing bit stressing different words can give a totally different meaning...

My understanding is it's just not traditional usage - it's a regional way of expressing it, the same as dropping the "to be". The traditional/formal way of saying it would be "it needs to be washed" and yes, they all sound equally "wrong" or regional, I'd say! I'd never heard anyone say it like this until well into adulthood, but my region does drop "to be" to say "needs washed" in spoken/informal language, which is equally "wrong" (but really these things are just regional dialects, I'd say).

On further thought I disagree. I'm at the limits of my grammatical knowledge here, but I think that cleaning, washing, cooking etc are gerunds and therefore nouns. The construction 'it needs washing ' is exactly the same as 'he needs food' ie subject, verb, object. This is perfectly correct in itself and not a contraction of anything.

This led me to consider the difference between 'he needs food' and 'he needs feeding'. The first emphasises what he needs and the second emphasises the action of feeding. Which seems to make sense as a gerund is a noun made from a verb so you'd expect it to be about an action.

'He needs fed' loses the ability to make this distinction. That's why I instinctively feel that it's a pity it's becoming more widespread.

For those of my era with fond memories of Molesworth and the gerund https://cambridgelatintutor.wordpress.com/tag/molesworth/

How about "It needs to be washed"? How does that sound to you?

How about "It needs to be washed"? How does that sound to you?

Normal. HTH

The problem is that what a word is, in terms of whether it's a noun, or a verb, etc. entirely depends on context. So we can't say what part of speech "bank" is, for example, until we know the context. That context also includes the form of English. So in standard Scottish English needs washing is a verb phrase, but in standard English English it's not. There isn't a correct form that has ever existed, it's just a standardisation of particular forms that existed in particular areas.

There isn't a correct form that has ever existed, it's just a standardisation of particular forms that existed in particular areas.

I still think that 'it needs washing' is a correct form, how can subject, verb, noun be otherwise? That doesn't mean that there aren't any other correct forms though

But this is what I mean, the term correct isn't terribly useful. Because there is no correct term. There are different standards, so needs washed is standard to Scottish English but not to English English. So this term may be ungrammatical to your standard of English, but it's not ungrammatical to me now as I tend to speak standard Scottish English. Growing up I spoke standard English English but I've lived in Scotland so long now that I use a different standard.

I'm Scottish - I generally add the 'to be', but I can understand others perfectly well if they omit it.

Even if you're not Scottish, I think most people would understand "it needs washed" - most of us can understand English that would be marked wrong in a class, from people using it as a foreign language and so on. It's not like it's using dialect vocabulary.