I can't seem to understand this weird sentence I saw as the first sentence on this shampoo bottle
Ordinary shampoos need not apply! […]
There seems to be missing a part of the sentence, right? I have never seen such a sentence before, it seems so weird, I'm pretty sure something is missing. But again, I'm still learning English, so I can be totally wrong 🙂
Is a "to" missing?
Ordinary shampoos need not to apply!
But that seems weird as well.
I think it means the same as
You don't need to apply ordinary shampoos! (because ours is the best? – maybe?)
Is the "translation" correct? If the first sentence is right (it probably is), are there other examples of such "weird" sentences?
The question Meaning of “X need not apply”? on English Language & Usage suggests that it is used for jobs, i.e.
Pencils need not apply! Only humans can.
For a job that pencils shouldn't bother applying, because the job is only for humans.
Is it the same as in the shampoo bottle example? That the bottle is way better than the other bottles, so they don't need to bother "applying" to a "shampoo bottle competition" (or similar), because they will lose?
Best Answer
There are two issues here.
As Cardinal says, need sometimes behaves like a modal verb: 1) taking a 'bare' infinitive instead of one marked with to, 2) uninflected for 3d person singular, and 3) deployed without do support Specifically, it may be used this way in negatives and questions.
But this use is not obligatory. You may also employ it normally, with a marked infinitive and do support.
"No X need apply" is a joking adaptation of a phrase from the last era when the US was suffering from severe anti-immigrant sentiment: when jobs were posted in newspapers and on businesses they were sometimes accompanied by notices that
meaning that Irish or Italians or other immigrant group should not bother applying for the job since this employer would not consider hiring them.
The shampoo puns on the two meanings of apply to assert its superiority to "ordinary" brands.