Why do you want to preserve the same subject?

Because I wanted to see if anyone spontaneously came up with the solution I found in the 90's translation of Alice in Wonderland which gave me much pause for thought - Via hararo bezonas tondiĝi.

Also I wanted to see the reaction to using 'bezoni' with an inanimate subject.

Obviously some figurative use is permissible - eg la klubo bezonas monon or la lingvo ne bezonas tiajn komplikaĵojn. But can hararo bezoni?

By the way, if you want to read Alice in Wonderland in Esperanto then do try the 1910 translation. You will learn a lot about the art of translation comparing that with the Broadribb version.

Compare for example:

1910 Ĉapitro 1 - Mirinda Falego
1996 Ĉapitro 1 - Tra la Kuniklotruon (the accusative isn't a typo on my part)

1910 La tunelo, ĉe la unuaj paŝoj, kondukis rekte antaŭen, same kiel fervoja tunelo, sed poste dekliniĝis malsupren kaj fariĝis kruta. Tio okazis tiel subite ke Alicio, ne havinte tempon por malakceliĝi, trovis sin vole nevole defalanta tre profundan ŝakton

1996 La kuniklotruo iris kelkan distancon rekte kiel tunelo, sed poste eksubeniris, tiom subite ke Alico ne havis momenton en kiu pensi pri haltigi sin antaŭ ol ŝi trovis sin falanta en io, kio aspektis tre profunda puto.

Somewhat surprisingly, given the number of dubious usages, my copy of the 90's version says 'korektita'.

Серёга:I like this variant.

The practice of making adjectives into verbs is actually my preferred style. I don't do it everywhere, but if it preserves the meaning (it doesn't always), has a good sound (also not a given), and isn't too long, then I'll typically go for it.

Sometimes that estas just drags down the rhythm of a line. Verbifying the adjectives eliminates it.

sudanglo:

Why do you want to preserve the same subject?

Because I wanted to see if anyone spontaneously came up with the solution I found in the 90's translation of Alice in Wonderland which gave me much pause for thought - Via hararo bezonas tondiĝi.

Also I wanted to see the reaction to using 'bezoni' with an inanimate subject.

Obviously some figurative use is permissible - eg la klubo bezonas monon or la lingvo ne bezonas tiajn komplikaĵojn. But can hararo bezoni?

I would say yes, hararo can bezoni. For instance: Mia hararo bezonas tondon.

However the verb tondigxi as in Mia hararo bezonas tondigxi or Mia hararo tondigxas, sounds strange to say the least.

The suffix -igx- generally denotes either some inchoative aspect as in La pomo putrigxas = La pomo ekputras, Mi sidigxas = Mi eksidas; or some medio-passive voice when a transitive action is applied to the subject itself: Mi ruligxas = Mi rulas min mem.
Therefore Mia hararo tondigxas or Mia hararo bezonas tondigxi sound to me like my hair magically cutting itself. Same with: Miaj ungoj puriĝas = Mi ne purigas miajn ungojn, tamen ili magie puriĝas solaj.

An actual passive doesn't sound so strange to me: Mia hararo bezonas esti tondita/ata.

Without trying to stick too literally to the English original, I would opt for either Mi bezonas hartondon, Mia hararo bezonas tondon or Bezonas tondi mian hararon. Also the aforementioned Mia hararo tondendas sounds fine.

nornen:Therefore Mia hararo tondigxas or Mia hararo bezonas tondigxi sound to me like my hair magically cutting itself.

From the Tekstaro:
- La romano vendiĝis en Svedio en 750 mil ekzempleroj.
- Dum 1989–2000 vendiĝis 823 ekzempleroj de ĉi tiu kasedo.
- En Danlando vendiĝis pasintjare 30 milionoj da libroj.

Does it sound like the books are magically selling themselves in these examples? I know it doesn't to me. Vendiĝi could easily be rendered by the Spanish venderse here.

@nornen, I agree with you that "La hararo bezonas tondighi" is strange, but I can't quite explain why, given that -igh- can be used as both reflexive (hair cuts itself) and mediopassive (hair is cut). (La domo konstruighas = La domo estas konstruata.) In Russian you certainly wouldn't say "volosy nuzhdajutsja postrich'sja", for example, though I'm less certain for Romance languages (i capelli hanno bisogno di tagliarsi looks a little odd, though i'm not a native speaker).

I think the problem is the main verb "bezonas" implies activity, not passivity, hence why you interpret "bezonas tondighi" as "need to cut themselves" vs "need to be cut".

We should be careful because "need" is used figuratively in English to mean "should" - "you need to be quiet" means you should be quiet, not that you have an actual need to be quiet.

I still think it would be better not to translate these kinds of sentences literally.

yyaann:

nornen:Therefore Mia hararo tondigxas or Mia hararo bezonas tondigxi sound to me like my hair magically cutting itself.

From the Tekstaro:
- La romano vendiĝis en Svedio en 750 mil ekzempleroj.
- Dum 1989–2000 vendiĝis 823 ekzempleroj de ĉi tiu kasedo.
- En Danlando vendiĝis pasintjare 30 milionoj da libroj.

Does it sound like the books are magically selling themselves in these examples? I know it doesn't to me. Vendiĝi could easily be rendered by the Spanish venderse here.

This is an interesting point. While "Esta novela se vende bien." and "La romano vendiĝas" sound 100% normal, the sentences "Mi pelo necesita cortarse" and "Mi pelo se corta." actually do sound like magic. No idea what is happening there? Maybe because we are talking about body parts?

Vestitor:

robbkvasnak:In large parts of the US people use the form: you hair needs cut - the room needs painted... etc.
I know "grammarians" will tell me that this is wrong [and it is also not a form that I use] but it is so common that trying to change the speech of so many would be impossible

Are you serious? It's not just 'wrong', but semi-literate. The same sort of structure creates: 'Your hair needs wash..' which sounds like someone speaking English as a second language. I could easily understand: 'Your hair needs (a good) wash', but not the former sentence.

As with any dialect, it only sounds "wrong" and "semi-literate" (and it does to me, too) because it's not the standard dialect. There's no logical reason it shouldn't work. The "to be" is dropped as a variety of ellipsis.

That construction is particularly prevalent in Western Pennsylvania, and is a notable feature of the way people from Pittsburgh talk.

From the article I linked to:

For those of you who are curious or want to do your own research, professor Barbara Johnstone, who studies Pittsburghese at Carnegie Mellon, calls the phenomenon “infinitival copula deletion.” “To be” is a copula, also known as a linking verb, in its infinitive form.

The “needs washed” construction is common in Scotland and Northern Ireland according to both linguists and a few Scottish and Irish respondents to my question, and when southwestern Pennsylvania was first settled by Europeans in the late 1600s and early 1700s, most of the settlers were Scots-Irish, a group of people with Scottish heritage who had settled for a few generations in the Ulster region of Northern Ireland. Not surprisingly, they brought their language—or what we might call quirks—with them.

I wonder if the construction is some sort of syntactic calque from Irish....

Vestitor:

robbkvasnak:In large parts of the US people use the form: you hair needs cut - the room needs painted... etc.
I know "grammarians" will tell me that this is wrong [and it is also not a form that I use] but it is so common that trying to change the speech of so many would be impossible

Are you serious? It's not just 'wrong', but semi-literate. The same sort of structure creates: 'Your hair needs wash..' which sounds like someone speaking English as a second language. I could easily understand: 'Your hair needs (a good) wash', but not the former sentence.

Your hair needs washed

Yes, this form also exists in Caribbean dialects - me thinks it comes from Irish indentured servants who were brought there by the English.
As to the amount to literacy here - English is a living language subject to change. When I was living in Germany I taught English in evening school. Several Germans "corrected" me at times and point to their British books that they had used before my class. Some of them became very angry at me because I pointed out that there are several variants - the British and the American among others. There is, alas, no ONE single standard English. I know that the Europeans prefer a British variant. But when spoken that way here it is quaint. If I as an American were to use the British variant here people would deem me very affected.

"X needs Y-ed", with the "to be" removed, is fairly common in my experience. While it is not "standard English" it certainly has a presence in various dialects.

As linguists (and descriptive grammarians) know, we need to be careful when evaluating certain forms as "wrong" or "incorrect" - more clearly, they are wrong in in relation to the normative or standard variant of the language, but not wrong or inferior in the context of the dialect. So I would hesistate to call constructions like "your hair needs washed" "semi-literate".

The same sort of structure creates: 'Your hair needs wash..' which sounds like someone speaking English as a second language.

I don't see how this follows. In your second example, we cannot add "to be" back in. The removal of "to be" is only possible when we are using the passive voice.