It’s perfectly good grammar. The most you might say is that it’s informal register. As septimus pointed out, the meaning of these auxiliary verbs drifts rather easily. Prescribing the distinction that you want to exist between “need” and “want” might be a valid subjective choice for a style guide, but it does not make this usage bad grammar.
I think it’s more than a dialect. It’s “politeness” or reluctance to issue commands, seen in some cultures. Like, when someone in Japan says “you might consider doing it this way,” they are really telling you to do it that way.
I once made the mistake in translating the “need to, have to” sense, using “you want to…” into Spanish. My partner told me it isn’t used that way in Spanish. Live and learn
And people wonder why translation algorithms get it wrong.
It’s not the same. You could just take a taxi. But the man was telling you the route you should prefer - with the Underground, there is often more than one way to get from A to B, especially within the Circle Line.
If a person with good local knowledge tells you that you want to take the Circle line rather than the Northern line, then that is the way you want to go. There are many journeys on the Underground with two or more possible routes that look roughly equivalent on the map, but they are often quite different in practice.
We seem to get more ‘wants’ as we go further north in the UK. ‘The dog wants fed’ = the dog is hungry. ‘The car wants washed’ = the car is dirty. ‘The horseshoe wants a nail’= the horse’s shoe lacks a nail. And so on.
Brit here and I’d say it’s fairly common spoken English in the UK. I don’t recall hearing it in dialects from the US, Australia etc so interesting to hear it is not just British slang.
In fact IME with foreign languages, it may not just be an English thing; eg in mandarin there are explicit words for “must” or “should” but in colloquial speech the same word as “want” is often used.
It’s not too different from talking about inanimate objects as if they had feelings and desires. And genders. Very common in my neighborhood.
“She wants to pull left,” said about a car.
“She likes to run hot,” said about an engine.
Yeah , it’s generally because they are phrasing it as a recommendation rather than an order.
It might be the only sensible recommendation, but they still aren’t willing to give you an absolute, nor express the sense.of urgency that “need to” connotates.
WRT giving someone directions to reach a particular destination, one presumably is justified in assuming that the asker WANTS to arrive at the destination. In such cases, recommendations about which way to turn, when to change modes of transportation, etc., are quite properly stated in terms of “things [the traveler] wants to do.”
On the subject of it being a Britishism, I am reminded of a time in the distant past when I read Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland for the first time, and came to the Mad Tea Party scene. The Mad Hatter told Alice, “Your hair wants cutting.” Even at the age of ten, I mentally put it down to “this is probably just the way English people talk,” and moved on.
That said, it was only several years later that I learned what “treacle” was. I still don’t think you can get it from the sides of a well.
Curiously, I have always gotten a more urgent tone from it, like it’s hinting at a warning. Maybe because it implies an unspoken “You don’t want to go that way; bad things will happen.”
Now I, er, want to hear if people choose to use it in specific types of situations.
Anyway, Californian here, and it’s not super-rare but still unusual as usage, in my experience. My mental picture of the speaker who uses it is of an older person.
I think this is exact reason. I’ve heard it quite often as well. It feels kinder and a bit more friendly. I hear an implied statement that there are other ways you could go or other things you could do, but I think this is the best one for you in these circumstances.
I don’t think this is correct. In general, you want an objective, and you are enquiring about what steps are necessary to achieve the objective.
For example:
If you want to go to London, you need to take either the M1 or the A1.
I have no implicit desire to be on either the A1 or M1, these are simply necessary steps that I must take in order to achieve what I want to do, which is to see Buckingham Palace.
So I don’t think this explains the colloquial use of “want” in the sense under consideration (to mean “need”).
I dobn’t think this has anything to do with implicit desire. If I were to ask “How do you get to Paris?” in a context which did not suggest that I myself had or might ever have any desire to go to Paris, you could still perfectly properly use this form of words to reply.
It’s “want” in the sense of lack or need. The “you” in the question “how do you get to Paris?” is the generic you; it doesn’t refer to any individual. Rephrase the question without using the generic you, and it will have the form of “what is necessary to be done in order to get to Paris?” And the answer tells you what is needful, using “want” in that sense.
I’ve lived in the north of England the majority of my life.
I only became aware of this despicable torture of the language about fifteen years ago and it does seem to be waning again now, fortunately.
A converse one seems to be creeping in currently - “Where’s he at”? instead of “Where is he”? and variations on that theme.
I, too, feel like the purpose of this structure is to soften the direct quality of giving commands, especially to a stranger. At least that’s how it comes off to me. Similar thing I’ve noticed is how some people (I most notice this from a UK friend who was raised in a posh part of London) use “I would have thought” in places where “I think” would be usual in my dialect. Yes, they do have slightly different meanings, but “I would have thought so” feels less definite, almost implying a “but now that you mention it, I’m not as sure” instead of the direct “I think so.” It’s not quite politeness in this case, but it does soften the strength of the speaker’s opinion.
That’s very helpful, thanks.
I’ll keep on using it, then. I like the “soften the direct quality of giving commands” aspect of the phrase.
Well this is strange. I always had this down as a US thing!
Agree that it’s common on both sides of the pond. In the West Country, you’ll hear a variant form. “you’re wanting x,” with the word order sometimes reversed. As in:
“What’s the best way to get to Truro?”
“You’re wanting the train from Exeter”
Or, “It’s the train from Exeter you’re wanting.”
Naturally, in this instance Exeter would be pronounced Aaaagzetter. And if anyone here needs to get from Exeter to Truro, it’s the 4:21 from Exeter St. David’s you’ll be wanting, so you can avoid the commuter rush.