English Prime

[Beverly Flanigan]

At 10:44 AM 5/23/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Richard Goodrow wrote:
> >
> > I encountered a concept called "English Prime" (roughly, omitting the verb
> > to be). I admit it intrigues me and wish to learn more. Do scholars hold
> > this concept in high esteem? Would anyone kindly pass along names of
> > researches who have studied this concept?
>
>Look into this site from E.W.Kellogg III and D. David Bourland,
>Jr.
><http://www.generalsemantics.org/Education/WEPrime.htm>
>
>Some other sites:
><http://www.ctlow.ca/E-Prime/E-Prime.html>
><http://www.angelfire.com/nd/danscorpio/ep2.html/>
><http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm>
>
>Or wander the Web
><http://www.google.com>
>search: "English prime" | "E-prime"
>
>You might have fun checking out what's said about it in Usenet
>newsgroups as well.
>
>I brought up the subject back when (in 2001) and someone
>commented "has DDB Jr been to arkansas or kentucky?  the folks
>i've met from there don't say 'to be' when they are supposed to.
>they say things like 'this shirt needs washed' or, at my
>brother's work, 'this needs edited'.  this drives me *crazy*
>[which brother says ain't fair, anyway]. he says the kentucky
>version of hamlet is simply 'or not, that is
>the question'."
>
>Sal

Have they noticed that "to be" is omitted only after 'needs/wants/likes'
verbs?  As usual, such critics and mockers don't bother about such fine
distinctions, if they ever noticed them at all.  You can come back at them
though with "This shirt needs washing," "This needs editing."  Assuming
they accept these constructions, how do they justify the lack of "to
be"?  (Of course, they might not like these Northern/North Midland forms
either.)