Is it okay to drop forms of the verb "to be"?

Question

People often use expression like "needs fixed," or "wants fed." I'm fond of these expressions because the omit unneccesary words. However, are they grammatically acceptable?

I'm looking for concrete rules, not personal opinion.

Answer 1

1. needs fixed = better use needs fixing
2. wants fed = wants feeding.

***The verb to be is the most irregular verb in the English language. It is normally a linking verb showing existence or condition of the subject. It can also be used as an auxiliary verb when forming the passive voice.

You are not violating any rules if you use
*** This chair needs some fixing.
but you are grammatically incorrect if you say
***This chair needs fixed. - you really need to put TO BE to form an infinitive phrase

Go to this link if you're not convinced.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/to_be.htm

Goodluck.

Answer 2

No, this is not grammatically acceptable. Here's why: what you are describing is the so-called "passive voice", which makes the actual verb behave like an adjective (so the verb "fix" in your example behaves like an adjective "fixed"). So whereas "you fix something", that something needs "to be fixed", not just "fixed" (since "fixed" acts as an adjective, the sentence now needs an auxiliary verb to apply that adjective to the subject).

Note that sometimes saying something like "The window was closed" is ambiguous: it can either mean that the window was closed *by* someone, or that the window *was not open*. To avoid that ambiguity, we frequently substitute the verb "be" with "get" in colloquial speech: so you would sometimes say "The window got closed", which implies that someone closed it. Either way, the auxiliary verb is still necessary in passive voice.

Answer 3

I've never heard anyone say that, unless they just didn't understand how to speak English properly. So no, they're not grammatically acceptable.

I have heard, which is common in dialects of British English "needs fixing" or "wants feeding". I know for a fact it's a common thing in Yorkshire, as my husband and a lot of friends speak like that.

Answer 4

Sorry, "to be" is not really a question. Something needs to be fixed, and someone wants to be fed. Omitting the "to be" is not proper for written language.

Although ... in conversational speech we get away with a lot of incorrect grammar, and the "grammar police" rarely take anyone away.

Answer 5

I hear that from Mid-west US people, mostly. They say this is OK. I disagree. How would it sound if Shakespeare wrote "or not, that is the question".

Language does evolve! So, you have touched on an area of OPINION! The rules that some believe may not be the rules that others believe in this case.

Answer 6

yes if you are not speaking or writing in a formal way

but people must be able to understand you clearly

communication is all about express and understanding ideas clearly

which one would you prefer a with a PhD using vocabulary word, and you have no clue or a person that broke every grammatical rule, but understand clearly?

Answer 7

I'm not sure about the rules but I think the verb"to be" is omitted only when using signs or given instructions.I've never really heard the verb"to Be" verbally omitted.I see it a lot on signs though......instructional signs.

Answer 8

Grammatically, they are not.

However, from a dialect point of view, modification of hard and fast rules of grammer is acceptable. I grew up where the question "Jeet?" was perfectly understandable.

Answer 9

No. The omission of these conjoining words is grammatically incorrect, and just another example of the world's penchant to be verbally and socially lazy.

Answer 10

Are you from Lancaster County, PA?

It's very common in rural Pennsylvania for this to occur. It's not only poor grammar, it sounds stupid.

"The car needs washed." Ugh.

So, no, it's not ok. It's just awful.

Edit: Haha, someone above mentioned PA too!