English grammar Q

[tarvos]

Of course you do... with that lovely accent all the way through.

[smallwhite]

We don’t even know red-font admin Bluepaint’s native language.

[rdearman]

We don’t even know red-font admin Bluepaint’s native language.

Give the two example sentences originally posted, I'm guessing that it isn't English.

I actually disagree, the first sounds wrong to me - it would have to be 'retrieving'. Maybe there are other parts of the UK where it's fine, but I've never heard it.

I've never heard anyone in the UK say it that way.

[Speakeasy]

It is possible that “It doesn’t need retrieval” is now common American usage. Nevertheless, as “retrieval” is a noun, I would consider this formulation to be a minor grammatical error which does not impede communication, but that “It doesn’t need retrieving”, wherein the verb form is employed as a gerund, would be correct usage, and this, irrespective of national norms.

As to the suggestion that certain constructions being “not allowed” in North America, whereas the regular use of gerunds in British English is somehow “colloquial” usage, I wonder if support for such an astonishing assertion could be supported by providing access to an authoritative reference on English grammar.

PS: I freely admit that I learned English a number of decades before the vast majority of the forum members were born.

[Deinonysus]

I also wonder why people add “to” or “and” to
- I went see him
- He came say hi

In English and several related languages, you can't use two conjugated verbs together. If one verb is conjugated, any other verbs that go with it need to be in the infinitive. The full infinitive would be "to see" or "to say".

You can use "to" once to put multiple words into the infinitive, such as: "I went to see him and say hi".

French works the same way. You can't translate "I went to see him" as "je suis allé le vois" because then you would have two conjugated verbs together. You need to say "je suis allé le voir" because "voir" is the infinitive form.

[Deinonysus]

It is possible that “It doesn’t need retrieval” is now common American usage. Nevertheless, as “retrieval” is a noun, I would consider this formulation to be a minor grammatical error which does not impede communication, but that “It doesn’t need retrieving”, wherein the verb form is employed as a gerund, would be correct usage, and this, irrespective of national norms.

"It needs to be retrieved" sounds the most natural to me. "It needs retrieval" just came to mind as a possible alternative.

I'm not sure I understand why the direct object of "need" needs to be a gerund. Would you be able to find a source that elaborates why this needs to be the case? "Retrieval" is a correct noun.

For example, you could say:
"This wall needs paint" (noun, non-gerund).
"This wall needs painting" (noun, gerund. Sounds British to me, not that there's anything wrong with that of course if that's your cup of tea).
"This wall needs to be painted" (infinitive helping verb with past participle).

As to the suggestion that certain constructions being “not allowed” in North America, whereas the regular use of gerunds in British English is somehow “colloquial” usage, I wonder if support for such an astonishing assertion could be supported by providing access to an authoritative reference on English grammar.

PS: I freely admit that I learned English a number of decades before the vast majority of the forum members were born.

Rereading what I wrote, I see how you could read that implication, but it was never my intention that Britishisms are unnatural. It just isn't usually what I would use in American English.

I don't know exactly why the construction of "it doesn't need retrieving" sounds British to me, but if you speak British English, then of course this is what you want. If you speak American English, it may sound odd but of course nobody will say that it's flat-out wrong. The American bobbies won't cart you off to gaol for snogging a packet of crisps in a lorry.

[jonm]

Lots of good information on constructions like "It doesn't need retrieved" here. I grew up near Washington, DC, and I wouldn't say it that way, but it looks like many American English speakers would, especially in the Midwest. Looks like not only need but also want and like can be used in this way, but there's a hierarchy: "My car needs fixed" is more widely accepted than "The baby wants picked up," which is more acceptable than "Most babies like cuddled." Negations like "The car doesn't need washed" are judged acceptable, so I assume "It doesn't need retrieved" would be as well. Lots of other interesting nuances discussed on the page.

[jonm]

Oh, and they say: "This construction is also attested in Scots English, which might be its historical source."

[Speakeasy]

I suppose that we could exchange examples all day …

This question needs an answer.
This question needs answering.
This question needs to be answered.

This wall needs (some*) paint. *partitive
This wall needs painting.
This wall needs to be painted.

As to the observation “American bobbies won’t cart you off to gaol …” no, I suppose they wouldn’t, but one ought to think twice about how best to interact with them.

[Speakeasy]

… many American English speakers ...

I have long been a proponent of the provinces and territories of Canada becoming members of the United States of America; the U.S. Constitution already provides for such a union should it be approved via a 2/3 majority vote by Congress. Now then, my support for such a project has been not for want of patriotic feelings for my homeland, on the contrary! Rather, it has been out missionary zeal. Once the marriage has been consummated, a veritable human wave of proper-English-speaking new American citizens would descend southward, bringing correct English to the huddled masses. As befitting one of our more positive national character traits, our linguistic corrections would be effected with the utmost politeness and, of course, we would apologize profusely for the interruption. Nevertheless, we would prevail. The United States would even become a member of the Francophonie!