a construction that could use (to be) studied

[Douglas G. Wilson]

On 7/22/2012 10:33 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society<ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Laurence Horn<laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject:      a construction that could use (to be) studied
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just noticed this exchange from an audiobook of _One for the Money_ (1994) by Janet Evanovich, between a cop named Crazy Carl Constanza and protagonist Stephanie Plum, a bounty hunter, who has just shown up at police headquarters with an FTA (fail-to-appear) who is (at best) drunk, asleep, and generally in pretty bad shape.  The characters are from Trenton, NJ, the author from nearby South River.
>
> "Is he dead?"
> "I don't think so."
> "He looks dead."
> I agreed. "He could use to be hosed down."
>
> Stephanie's construction in the last utterance reminded me of the "needs washed" construction, in part because I don't have it.  I could say "He could use hosing down" (just as I could say "He needs hosing down" *or* "He needs to be hosed down"), but I can't say "He could use to be hosed down".  And needless to say, I can't say "He could use hosed down".  I'm not sure Stephanie (or her creator) could say the latter, but a fairly substantial number of web contributors can say both.  It's especially frequent (with "to be" or not "to be") in Craigslist postings.
>
> This is not terribly surprising, given how close "could use" in these contexts is semantically to "needs", but I've just never heard or read examples before and never seen it discussed.  Here's a sampling of both versions, with just "cleaned" and "washed" as the relevant participles (not surprisingly, the only "could use to be hosed off" that comes up is the one from the exchange above):
>
> [+ TO BE}
> Couple of white artifacts could use to be cleaned up as well.
> Well I am having a party this weekend and noticed my windows could use to be cleaned.
> couches are microfiber, not damaged just could use to be cleaned
> My white coat shows every teeny tiny bit of dirt and I was pretty sure the kids' coats could use to be washed too.
> My hair is a mess & could use to be washed
> There are a few stains on the ottoman and the arm covers could use to be washed
>
> [- TO BE]
> There are a lot of things on this site that could use cleaned up, but it won't happen.
> It's got a little corrosion on the outside of it, and could use cleaned up.
> This house is livable right now but could use cleaned and a few minor things depending on preference.
> Condition: Very Good, collar could use washed a bit.
> The cover could use washed.
> the hair [on a Barbie] is a bit gunky and could use washed
>
>
> We know from work (a significant amount of it by Tom Murray and Beth Lee Simon) that Midlands speakers from Pittsburgh west and south can, to varying degrees, get "needs Ved", "wants Ved", "likes Ved", and so on.  Has "could use Ved" been discussed anywhere?  Is "could use to be Ved" possible across a wider expanse of territory, evidently extending to central NJ, but not NY or New England?  (Is it described in the last volume of DARE under _use_, v., Joan?  Are you currently on the list, Beth?)
--

 From a few months ago:

http://tinyurl.com/c9h4kjg

<<

I'm familiar with "could use" meaning something like "want[s]" or
"need[s]" or "could benefit from": e.g., "I sure could use a beer" or
"My house could use a paint job" (or "My house could use [a/some]
painting").

Recently a correspondent has asked about "could use to [infinitive]" in
this sense. E.g., instead of "I could use a break" one might say "I
could use to take a break" (meaning approx. "I want to take a break").
[I suppose one might could also say "My house could use to be painted",
etc.]

I don't think I'm familiar with this usage. I do find examples on-line.
Is it regional?

[Note also that this usage provides another example of ostensible "to
be/get" elision parallel to "need/want/etc. washed": instead of "My car
could use to be washed" (unfamiliar to me), a Pittsburgh or Midland
speaker could say "My car could use washed" ... I do believe I've heard
this construction and  examples are indeed found on-line (e.g., search
<<"could use cleaned">>).]

 >>

Another comparable construction: "could stand (e.g., [to be] washed)".

Incidentally, I can speculate why "washed" is the favorite example (it's
frequent, but so are examples with other verbs): "needs worshed"
_supposedly_ exemplifies two Pittsburgh (or whatever) tendencies at once.

-- Doug Wilson

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org