Subject: another interesting discovery
Author:
Posted on: 2009-01-08 19:25:00 UTC
Yes, the intent of both sentences was identical.
I'm in Hull (which you've probably heard of, what with the ferries), and we often skip the pronoun in the same way as you with your book. For example, if you said you were going to the shops, I'd reply "Mind if I come with?" I wonder if it's parallel evolution of dialects, or if we pinched it off you or vice versa.
The short explanation for this poll is: Rilwen called Pads on a grammatical construction that may or may not be standard. Pads and Sedri bickered goodnaturedly over it for a couple of hours. Neither Pads nor Sedri has the neccesary linguistical toolbox to explain a) what was going on in the sentence under contention or b) why one version or another might be standard. Both Pads and Sedri have called on their respective linguistics professors for clarification. To date, only Pads's professor has replied. His notion is that the grammatical construction in question may or may not be standard, but it seems to have a geographical basis. In the spirit of pure inquiry, we therefore ask you all to answer the following two questions:
a) where are you from?
b) which grammatical construction would you usually use?
(i)"he needs his head checking"
OR
(ii)"he needs his head checked"
I'm from Australia (east coast)
I'd go with "He needs his head checked" out of the two options, but I'd think that "His head needs checking" would be preferable to either.
Elcalion
Consensus seems to be that we're looking at a purely British English phenomenon. I'm still confused by why non-British English is rather more prescriptive in this particular matter, but investigations will continue.
Cheers!
A) Frederick, MD, America
B) [ii] He needs his head checked.
a)Central North Island, New Zealand.
b)"He needs his head checked." In a put-on Cockney accent.
a) I'm from the Eastern Coast of the USA, Maryland to be exact.
b) I'd use "he needs his head checked," but I might also use "his head needs checking."
A) New York
B) (ii)
He needs his head checking what? His E-mail?
a) England
b)i. Just sounds better that way.
a) America, which means you should totally disregard the next answer.
b) "He needs his head checked."
a) where are you from?
I'm from the Pacific side of the U.S. of A.
b) which grammatical construction would you usually use?
(i)"he needs his head checking"
OR
(ii)"he needs his head checked"
I'd use the latter.
1) Derby, via Krefeld, Hannover, Catterick and Harrogate. (Don't ask)
2) I use both, but more often than not it's 'he needs his head checked/examined/felt' with the addition of 'with a sledgehammer' to the end of that.
a) Seattle
b) it really depends on context - if you're saying "I think he's crazy or obsessed about something", it's "I think he needs to get his head checked". If, however, you're saying "he's borderline crazy and needs to talk with his shrink", I'd use "he needs his weekly/monthly/annual head checking".
Grammatically speaking, it all comes down to what, exactly, is being done - is his head being checked, or is he getting a head check?
The first strikes me as being slightly more serious, while the second is a bit more colloquial... Once again, it depends on context.
a) Northern Midwest USA
b) ii. checked
Although, to be fair, I think it's only used around me when people want to talk about me. It would be a bit pot, kettle, black if I did use it.
Anyway. a) South East England
and b) I'd actually say "he needs to have his head checked". Out of the two, "he needs his head checked" sounds better to me though.
I think the authors of C*l*br**n, Ch* Ch*ng's D*sires, and S*bj*g*t**n need their heads examined.
I'm from the States. I'd use "He needs his head checked."
a) Untied States of Hysteria.
b) "he needs his head checked".
a) Northeast United States
b) "He needs his head checked."
a) Originally from Cornwall, but been living in the Midlands for twelve years.
b) I'd use "he needs his head checking", but that's more because that's how I've always heard the phrase used (and used it myself) than for any reasons of grammatical correctness.
I'm gonna have to go with "he needs his head checked." The first one works but it could also mean that he needs his head to be checking something. 0.o
a.) Ninth zone east after the great prime meridian (sorry, can't resist).
b.)ii
a) from the Netherlands. Learned my English from TV (I'm sorry English teachers, but that's the truth of it), so it's a mix of British, American, Canadian and Australian.
b) second option. First option made me ask: what does his head need to check? I assume that the intend of both sentences was that someone's head should be examined rather than that the head does some examining.
Regional difference could be very likely. In Dutch there are several difference between the Netherlands and Belgium in how certain things are said, and even within the Netherlands there are regional differences. For instance in the south someone would say: I brought the book with (litteral translation, so excuse for the incorrect English for a moment). And people from the north always insist the correct sentence is: I brought the book with me. For a southerner the "me" is implied; who else are you going to bring a book with?
Guess something similar may be the case here: in the first sentence it is implied that heads to check things, so they must be the things getting the checking.
Yes, the intent of both sentences was identical.
I'm in Hull (which you've probably heard of, what with the ferries), and we often skip the pronoun in the same way as you with your book. For example, if you said you were going to the shops, I'd reply "Mind if I come with?" I wonder if it's parallel evolution of dialects, or if we pinched it off you or vice versa.
Amazing. That's all I could say.
I'm from... uh... shoot.
Born in northwest US, lived in British Columbia since I was twelve.
I think I'd use ii - "he needs his head checked."
...i could work, I suppose, but I'd put a hyphen in it. Because yes, I am just that strange. Turn that last bit into head-checking and all of a sudden it makes sense to me.
...yes. That's all I have to say on the matter. Really. ^^;
"He needs his head-checking"? Head-checking is, I think, a noun phrase there. And that, er, totally doesn't make sense, unless "head-checking" is an actual thing that one could want or see or point at. Which may be the case, but also totally rearranges the grammar and semantics of our initial problematical sentence.
*scratches head*
Truly, we learn something new every day. (Although you have not, alas, beaten the weirdness of being informed that, in Scotland, one can acceptably say "His head needs checked.")
They just dropped the "to be." They do that in Pennsylvania, too, from what I've heard.
~Neshomeh
I heard a story of a doctor who had recently moved to PA being confused by the way his nurses talked. One gave him a chart and told him, "This needs read."
The doctor was stumped as to why the chart would need some red (pen/markings) on it, until finally the nurse clarified, "No, you need to *read* it."
Personally, I was confused by the sentence "The room needs sweepered," also encountered in PA.
Exactly. He's overdue for his head-checking. *nodnods* I had the feeling it would, but I felt obliged to point it out. ^^
...darn. But hey, I learned something new, so it wasn't a total waste~
a) I'm from the northerly midwestern USA.
b) He needs his head checked.
And I'll tell you why I think so. First of all, the full sentence should be "he needs to have his head checked," presumably by a medical doctor or psychologist or something like that. As far as I know, there is no such activity as to have a "head checking," so that makes no sense to me. To have one's head checked, however, implies an examination of some sort, and makes perfect sense if you're questioning someone's intelligence or sanity.
~Neshomeh + $0.02
The "to have" is implicit, not directly stated. The "checked" is past tense. To need to have one's head checked seems, semantically, to be expressing a desire for one's head to have been checked. We're still waiting on word from the linguistics professors on how to break down "he needs it checking", but, to me and to everyone who took part in my informal straw poll in the pub tonight, the continuous present seems a better verb form to use when referring to an action one wants to come to pass. Better than the past, anyway. It is confusing to say the least.
How would you phrase the following: "His head needs checking" or "his head needs to be checked"?
Oh, and I don't suppose you've any knowledge of modals in Latin?
(Warning: I Am Not An English Teacher. take with a grain of salt)
Would "checked" still seem like past tense if I was to say "he's having his head checked by Dr. Freedenberg"? Transitive or intransitive, I don't think "checked" is past tense. It's being used in the perfective aspect, that of referring to the action as a whole, rather than the past tense. The two of them using the same word is just bad language design.
To my (American English) mind, anyways, "to have" can't be made implicit, because it's the primary verb in the sentence. It's a state-of-being sentence, in this case that while he does not have X, he should. (X, of course, being a trip to a psychologist.)
What can I say? English is a crazy language.
"His head needs checking" or "his head needs to be checked" are both valid sentences, and mean the same thing as "he needs to have his head checked". The last form is the most commonly used one around here, but that's probably a dialect thing rather than a real law.
And this is the point when I lament the woeful state of English grammar teaching in English schools. *goes to look up transitive and intransitive verbs*
Your "he needs to have his head checked" is certainly standard, at least. But not a law, clearly, because this thread's shown that English has a million and one ways to say any particular thing.
Sadly, I don't know much of anything about Latin grammar.
I wonder if "he needs (to have) his head checked" is an instance of the passive voice my professors hate so much. "His head needs to be checked" might be the academically preferred way to say the same thing. "His head needs checking" or "needs a checking" also works, though I would say that's more informal. In those constructions, the gerund becomes a noun more than a verb. Maybe the most grammatically sensible construction would be "his head needs a check." Of course, no one says that.
I don't think "checked" is strictly past tense in "he needs his head checked," though. A quick scan through my Chicago Manual of Style reveals no concrete answer, but I suspect it's some form of participle.
I'll ask my professors about it if you want more input. The word "check" is ceasing to have meaning in my head, though, so I'm done for now. ^_^;
~Neshomeh, who hates it when that happens.
Any insight your professors could give would be smashing.
Gerund's a verb acting as a noun, right?
Past participle of some description sounds about right, I'm just terribly bad at remembering the words for all these things, since I was actually taught them in German. I had a good chat with my dad about it last night, and we're pretty certain "needs" is acting as a modal verb. So if we were speaking German (except they'd express the idea completely differently), that last verb would take the infinitive, which is very close to the English "needs to be checked" except without the "-ed" on the end. Not sure what form the verb would take in any other languages though.
The reason I ask about Latin is that, in mine and Sedri's original conversation, she also commented on me splitting infinitives, and this not being allowed. So she seems, at least to some degree, to have been taught the prescriptive Latinate grammar touted as superior in the 19th century. It's possible the checked/checking thing results from that same attempt to force a Germanic language into a Latin mould, so looking into Latin modals would be useful.
Then there's still this issue of "His head needs checking" versus "He needs his head checking". We've none of us yet been able to come up with any concrete reason why the former would be acceptable while the latter wouldn't. And my linguistics professor says that one's still up for debate. Any ideas? Looking at your previous post, and everyone else's, it seems as though the general consensus is that there's a head check noun phrase involved, but if that's the case, it makes no more sense to tack -ed on the end than -ing. If "needs" is being used as a modal verb, it needs another verb after, and that other verb can take various tenses ("I should go", "I should be going", or "I should have gone", for example) depending on meaning. Of course, stating this clearly brings us no closer to deciding the most appropriate tense for that verb. I'm just sure that past is no more (and also perhaps no less) applicable than the continuous present.
Gah. Tying my brain in knots here.
I'm from Sydney. If I was going to use an expression like that, I'd probably use 'he needs his head checked'.