I recently listened to a podcast in which the narrator described an unresolved obstacle as a "problem that needed solved." My initial assumption was that he had meant to say "problem that needed to be solved," but had misspoken. However, he used the same phrase again later. I had never encountered this phrase before, so I did a google search for the exact phrase and found a surprisingly diverse set of results including user comments, professional web content, and books. I am now curious. Is this, seemingly grammatically incorrect, phrase commonly used in certain regions or is there some other known origin?
7581
In the  (and possibly elsewhere), the following construction is possible:        This car needs washed. (=needs to be washed)   The room needs cleaned. (=needs to be cleaned)      It appears that, if a verb like needs is followed by a passive construction in the infinitive, the "to be" portion is left out.  This construction sounds so unnatural to my ear that I have no intuition as to the extent to which it can be extended to other words and contexts.  If anyone here is a native speaker of this dialect of English, perhaps they can help to explain the limits on its use.  My basic question is: how productive is this particular construction among those who use it?  To be more specific, can this construction be used with any verb (if that verb can be immediately followed by a passive construction, of course)?  That is, would (any of) the following be acceptable, for example?        At this restaurant, we always wait seated. (=wait to be seated)   My kid hates picked last in sports. (=hates to be picked)   We all want loved. (=want to be loved)      If this construction is restricted, then which verbs can be used, aside from need?  Edit: What I am really hoping for here is that there is someone who happens across this question that can say, "I actively use this construction, and here's what I can and can't say."
20001
Where did this ubiquitous phrase come from? Usually it is used in conjunction with either disputable of downright dubious information but I can't think of how salt helps the situation. The only thing I can think of is that since salt had a higher value in ancient times, that maybe the speaker is trying to almost bribe the recipient ("here is some info and here's some salt for your trouble") but I am just theorizing, take it with a grain of salt.
35610
I'm trying to find either a word or a phrase that describes a person who knows the answer to a problem or problems but is never believed, even though the person is actually correct. The nearest I can come up with is maybe the story of , but that is about knowing the future but never being believed. The word or a phrase may indicate they are simply ignored, but I am more interested in answers indicating the person suffers negative consequences such as being ridiculed or even persecuted for their correct solution. Maybe think of people such as  I stumbled across  of people whose ideas were rejected and were treated as pariahs for them but were later proven to be correct. These are exactly the kind of people I am looking for words or phrases to describe.
15290
I'm from Central Pennsylvania, and apparently, we have a strange language construct in this area. I was recently talking about how "my car needs washed" to a friend from NJ, and she told me that my sentence was grammatically incorrect.   I realize she's right, and I realize my options are "my car needs to be washed" or "my car needs washing". But I'm not clear on the precise rule being invoked.
91163
I'm increasingly hearing the phrase "out of pocket" used in America as a colloquialism to mean "away from the office", "unavailable", or "incommunicado".     I apologize for not replying sooner; I have been out of pocket.    What is the etymology of this usage? It always sounds odd to me, since I had previously always associated the phrase with expenses, e.g., "I had to pay for the service out of pocket," meaning, "I had to pay for the service using my own money." Should either of these usages be avoided? What is the extent of their acceptance?
87330
I am always confused with the preposition. Can somebody point me to the material where prepositional phrase is explained?  Here is the problem I am facing currently.     This was discussed (stated/announced/said) at the last meeting when you were not present.    or     This was discussed (stated/announced/said) in the last meeting when you were not present.
51917
This seems to be a common enough occurrence that it would merit its own phrase. I imagine it might be some sort of subset of Murphy's Law. But it's specific enough that Murphy's Law doesn't quite address it.  Do you know when you are banging your head against a wall for hours trying to fix something? And then when you finally give up and try to get someone else to come fix it (or even just look at it to see that it's broken), it's working perfectly as if nothing had ever happened? And at this point, you're just trying to convince the other person that it was broken in the first place.  It'd at least take some of the frustration out of the experience if you could both just laugh about &lt;insert the phrase for it here&gt;. But as it is now, I basically have to go through the whole paragraph above to say it, and at that point the joke is kind of lost.
84188
There are different types of problem.   or      There are different types of problems.   I easily get confused when I make such sentence(s). Look, still I am not sure whether I should use sentence or sentences.
11020
Could you please remind me what term linguists and the grammar people use to call it when it's used as a subject pronoun, but the funky thing is that it doesn't really refer back to anything in particular like he, she or we usually do which do refer back to a person or an animal that they stand for.  In grammar-speak, when it is used like that they say that it has no antecedent. I think I knew the term, but I unfortunately forgot it. I did a Google search, but the only thing I could find was empty subject. But the truth is that I don't think that's what they actually use in linguistics. Would you please refresh my memory?  Examples:        It's quite cold today outside. So, I don't really wanna go out.   Did I solve that math problem? Yes. Actually, it was very easy to get it cracked. There was really nothing to it!   Don't mention it! It's nothing. I really like to help people who are in need.
39244
I know that I came from a country where inventing words or phrase for something is common. I always hear this phrase when they say it:     you're so feeling close   to denote that someone pretends to be your close friend or vice versa. I'm not just that confident that the usage of this phrase is valid. I believe that we're the only one who used this.  A singled word or phrase will do.
4337
I'm looking for a phrase that describes trying to fix problems caused by underlying issues, with the result of compounding the issue. I usually call this "targeting surface problems rather than root problems", but my terminology is verbose.  Example 1: A government bans buying and selling bananas in the state. Later, it passes a clause allowing citizens to purchase imported bananas.  Example 2: A divided highway is erected with two lanes going in each direction but, since it gets lots of traffic, the shoulders are widened into new lanes. This leaves no shoulder room.  What would be a more concise phrase?
13666
What is the grammar behind the construction "I think it strange/necessary that ...", and when can and cannot this apparent omission of the copula be used? Do we always need the "that" clause?  Also, this seems to be only allowed when the object is a pronoun (it in the above example). That is, we don't say "I think this method strange", correct?
103935
How do you write something that was discussed in the past, while the issue still exists in the present?        The discussion resulted in the committee members highlighting crucial areas that need to be addressed.   The discussion resulted in the committee members highlighting crucial areas that needed to be addressed.      ......................     1'. The discussion resulted in the committee members highlighting crucial areas that need to be addressed if one is to achieve the desired outcome.      2'. The discussion resulted in the committee members highlighting   crucial areas that needed to be addressed if one were to   achieve the desired outcome.
98496
First of all, English is not my first language. I have a question, maybe a basic one, about this phrase:     The situation highlights the mismatch between some areas of training and available jobs to/for them.   Should it be "available jobs to them" or "available jobs for them"?  Sorry if the question is really basic.
94096
Possible Duplicate:             For the past few years I've been noticing a curious phenomenon.  People are quite commonly saying things like "... the problem is is that we don't have access to ...".  It appears that the first "is" has been grafted onto the semantic unit of "the problem" and is no longer being perceived as being present, so the speaker has to add the second "is".  I first thought that this might be related to situations where a repeated "is" is valid, such as  ... the question is "Is this our only option?" ...   but it seems to occur mostly in constructs of the form  ... the [x] is that ...   instead.  I seem to be very sensitive to this and hear it several times a day, often on local or national news broadcasts.  In fact, it's now jarring (in a good way) when I hear someone NOT repeating "is".   Is there a name for this phenomenon? Is it as rampant as it appears to me?
122487
Is it correct to write: "An agreement is imperative to tackling the problem"?  Or should it be: "An agreement is imperative to tackle the problem"?  Thanks
112486
If this were a "modern" phrase, you could (perhaps) justify it based on psychological science, related to the usage of energy by brain activity, including putting attention into something. As such "pay attention" could have emerged as "pay the cost of some mental energy into giving attention to something".   However, it seems this phrase dates at least from half of the XVIII century (axis below from 1600 to 2008):    So, the scientific justification given above might not apply to such phrase. I cannot find any answer for this online (other forums are unhelpful, e.g.  or ).   So, what is the origin of such phrase?  Note: there are several question in this site about when to use that or an alternative expression (e.g. , , and ), which is not what I am asking.