It’s common here in Oklahoma, as well.
It’s common in southern and central Ohio, and it still sounds ungrammatical to me after living in Ohio for eleven years. Some people I work with drop the “to be” in technical documents and emails as well as speech.
Is there a collision of participle here that’s normally buffered/linked by ‘to be’? I’m not a grammar expert, so I can’t tell for sure, but it seems like it:
“The dishwasher needs” - Present, “emptied” - Past
Is that why this seems an uncomfortable construction to those unfamiliar with it, or is it just the unfamiliarity?
I think it’s uncomfortable because it’s an unfamiliar/irregular usage. I’m pretty well read and I can’t recall having seen the construction anywhere except here on the dope. It may be common where some people live, but it’s not world-wide common. The usage in question does not follow the general rules of English and is non-standard.
My best guess is it’s a logical elision of the verb ‘to be’ where it’s not really needed to convey meaning (spoken language often evolves to more simple, efficient, forms when meaning is not sacrificed).
“The dishwasher needs emptying” - standard English.
“The dishwasher needs to be emptied” - standard English.
“The dishwasher needs emptied” - non-standard English, but the least number of syllables.
However, for most people, when they hear “The dishwasher needs emptied.”, they hear “emptied” as an adjective, and therefore think it needs a noun or noun phrase to follow:
“The dishwasher needs emptied fuel cells in order to function properly”.
I don’t recall hearing this in PA, but I spent most of my time in the good (Eastern) part of the state. I may have heard it and assumed a little tripping over the tonque since the meaning is clear.
And while we’re at it, why do some weirdos leave off “the” when saying something like “He was transported to the hospital.” ???
“To hospital” is a Britishism, normally.
Brits use “hospital” both with and without the article, depending on context. It’s the same distinction we Americans use with certain place names: “John is at school” means that he’s a student taking classes, but “John is at the school” might mean that he’s at the PTA meeting, or doing some maintenance work there, or he’s just driving by on his way home and it’s just a statement of how close he is. Likewise, there’s a distinction between “at church” and “at the church”, or “in prison” and “in the prison”. It’s the same distinction with hospitals, in British English: Someone who’s in hospital is sick or injured and is there to be treated, while someone who’s in the hospital might just be doing volunteer work, or visiting a friend, or delivering something.
In other words, the ambulance driver is going to the hospital, while the patient in back is going to hospital.
And there’s another one!
“In back” just sounds so wrong. “In the back” sounds correct to me.
Anti-Ebonics?