woodcutter wrote:Pg.36 of R.L.Trask's "Language Change Workbook" is dead on this topic - pehaps the origin of it?
He says the "ing" form is (very roughly) normal in the north, midlands and SW (of Britain). Which is sort of what I said.
Yes, those areas, and London, are where I've heard it.
............
Conclusion reached by John Lawler, linguist:
Dear M56
Very interesting question.
I've never encountered any of these constructions before, in a life spent in the USA.
I would use the past participle, not the present, in all of these constructions.
I have, however, encountered something like it, but spectacularly reversed:
In some regions of the U.S. (and I'm sure in other regions worldwide),
the following construction is common:
This car needs washed.
I would use the present participle in this construction, not the past:
This car needs washing.
What everybody needs to understand is that there is no such thing as
"The English Language", the same for everybody. In fact, everybody
learns their own language, and then we all spend our lives trying to
pass as English speakers.
In your idiolect, "need/want" can take a past participle; in others',
they take only a present participle. That's the extent of it, really.
You happen to speak a different idiolect from that of your correspondents.
So, what else is new? There are hundreds of such differences
between the speech of anyone and anyone else, if they only
cared enough to document them. Neither is right, absolutely.
Both are right, relatively.
Perhaps this is what Benedict XVI was warning about -- "the
dictatorship of relativism". No doubt there will be an encyclical
about it in time. In the meantime, take some advice from the
Hitchhiker's Guide, and Don't Panic. Go right ahead and speak
and write English as it seems correct to you.
Cheers,
-j
Interesting.