The car needs cleaned.

Adam   Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:51 am GMT
In the Scottish dialect of English, they say ""It needs cleanit", meaning "It needs cleaned."

It makes perfect sense to me.

After some verbs, such as "needs", "wants", the "to be" can be ommitted.

"It needs cleaned."

"The house needs tidied."
todd m   Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:48 pm GMT
I hear it said like this " If you need something to do,these dishes need cleaned."
todd   Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:49 pm GMT
its common where I live
andre in usa   Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:09 pm GMT
I have friends who use the "needs cleaned" construction, since I attend school in Pittsburgh. I even find myself picking it up. It's faster than saying "needs to be cleaned." Saves you two syllables.
Kirk   Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:59 pm GMT
<<have friends who use the "needs cleaned" construction, since I attend school in Pittsburgh. I even find myself picking it up. It's faster than saying "needs to be cleaned." Saves you two syllables.>>

That's interesting. You'd get strange looks if you used that here in California--it's unheard of.
Travis   Tue Nov 15, 2005 12:38 am GMT
>>That's interesting. You'd get strange looks if you used that here in California--it's unheard of.<<

Same with me - the construction to me sounds very ungrammatical, and quite strange, from the perspective of my own dialect, and I have practically never actually heard it in use in Real Life.
Guest   Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:25 pm GMT
sup
Lazar   Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:08 am GMT
I don't think I have ever heard anyone use the "needs cleaned" construction - I just know about it from the Internet.
rikyo   Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:59 am GMT
I'm Australian; "The car needs cleaned." is completely wrong here.

On the other hand, "The car needs a clean." is correct. How about elsewhere?
Andrew   Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:28 pm GMT
I heard it once a long time ago and heard it again today at work when a lady brought in her sewing machine for repair. She said, "Yeah, maybe it just needs cleaned." Later she said, "I use it alot. Maybe it needs cleaned," suggesting her phraseology was intentional.

Despairingly aggrivating to ones' ears. It is improper and invokes righteous frustration (if there were such a thing) in the emotions of a sophisticated man.

Verb tenses such as that man needs killing, or the boy needs whipping are proper. That really has nothing to do with the construct of topic. Had the same pattern been used with these two examples as had been exemplified in this discussion, they would have been improper, saying, The boy needs whipped, and saying, That man needs killed. These are both uneducated and illegitimate uses of the English language, whether or not a foreign construct is in implement.

Our language is not separated by dialects. If we do not understand and uphold these rules, the unification of speech we freely enjoy will become, as have many other things in America, a "melting pot". Where is our heritage?
Andrew   Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:29 pm GMT
And the car needs a clean is proper here in America.
26AL   Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:44 pm GMT
"Despairingly aggrivating [sic] to ones' [sic] ears. It is improper and invokes righteous frustration (if there were such a thing) in the emotions of a sophisticated man."

It's "improper" because it sounds "wrong" to you. However, within the dialect grouping that uses this construction, it's fine.

"Verb tenses such as that man needs killing, or the boy needs whipping are proper. That really has nothing to do with the construct of topic. Had the same pattern been used with these two examples as had been exemplified in this discussion, they would have been improper, saying, The boy needs whipped, and saying, That man needs killed. These are both uneducated and illegitimate uses of the English language"

They might be "uneducated" (inasmuch as they do not reflect the norms of so-called "Standard English") but they can hardly be considered illegitimate.

Ellipsis (in the sense of dropping words without loss of meaning) is an extremely common feature of English. Even "Standard English" permits it:

"The book [that] you want is at the shop."

"[I] Bought the new book! [It's] A fascinating read!"

Because the particular ellipsis of this dialect is unfamiliar to you (needs+[to be]+past participle), it automatically sounds "wrong."
Andrew   Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:23 pm GMT
However, it is not proper in regards to standard English, which is what you said yourself. Therefore, it should not be said in such a way, making it illegitimate.

There was a bit of dry sarcasm in the second paragraph of my statement. I'm sorry if it appeared that I sit on a "high horse".

I don't claim to know all about the English language. Needs - present tense. Cleaned - past tense. They are simple verbs. "To be" is future.

26AL said: "The book [that] you want is at the shop."

True. The [that] is not necassary. Now if I construct this sentence with the same subject matter in question, it would be incorrect and sound like this, "The book that you want at the shop." The [that] in question is not in the same category as "to be" or "is", which insinuates a certain time in both your example sentence and the sentence we debate.

Compare that to "the car needs to be cleaned" versus "the car needs cleaned". Same structure, both incorrect.

Is, to be, was, will be, etc. I may not know the terminology, but I do know how to properly build an English sentence.
26AI   Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:30 pm GMT
"However, it is not proper in regards to standard English, which is what you said yourself."

No I did not. I suggested that the construction did not reflect the norms of so-called "Standard English." Incidently, "Standard English" is one of those great useful fictions that comes in handy for both teaching English to NNES and keeping the illiterate unwashed in their place. I have never, in my entire life, ever met a single person who speaks "Standard English."

"I don't claim to know all about the English language. Needs - present tense. Cleaned - past tense. They are simple verbs. 'To be' is future."

"To be" is an infinitive.

"The [that] is not necassary. Now if I construct this sentence with the same subject matter in question, it would be incorrect and sound like this, "The book that you want at the shop." The [that] in question is not in the same category as 'to be' or 'is', which insinuates a certain time in both your example sentence and the sentence we debate."

Compare that to 'the car needs to be cleaned' versus 'the car needs cleaned'. Same structure, both incorrect."

What doesn't work for you or "Standard English" does work in the dialects that use this construction.

"I do know how to properly build an English sentence."

All native English speakers do. But different dialect groups have different grammatical requirements.
Andrew   Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:06 pm GMT
Ok. That very good. I think I make my own dialect now, also, too.

If you wish discuss this any far-er, simply argue the properly constructed grammar I just left and I'll respond again and so will you until one of us decides to step outside the box we're in. Mine, being not able to accept others view of the language I thought I knew. Yours being not able to accept that there is a general set of rules that we should all follow more closely than what we do.

Just because a group of people say it one way, does not make it so! The simple truth is that the English I speak cannot be spoken like German French or Spanish! It IS English. Dialects do not exist to the extent that they cause the deletion of impertive words used to make a sentence complete. I know they do in other languages, but not English.

So, please excuse me, but, I shall dismiss myself once more by saying, I talk you later.

P.S. I hate spam.

And, yes, that is correct