THEORY: transitivity

Hello all.

I've been thinking about making a lang which distinguishes
between zero-transitive, intransitive, transitive and=20
ditransitive (is that the English term?) verbs in that
the conjugation would be different in each form.
(And possibly also distinguish between verbs that
don't have an agent, eg. "I sleep" and verbs that do.)

0. (It) rains   [no S or O]
1. I sleep    [only S]
2. I eat (food)    [S and O]
3. I give (it to you)    [1 S and 2 Os]

The question is if transitive verbs should be conjugated
as intransitive if they don't have an object.

"-e" marks transitivity.
"-y" marks intransitivity.

Alt. 1:
Na mrine. - I eat.
Na mrine nando. - I eat food.

or

Alt. 2:
Na mriny. - I eat.
Na mrine nando. - I eat food.

Has any of you done this in your langs, or do you know
what the standard is in natlangs?

A second thought:

Perhaps this is just some kind of object agreement on
the verb:
"-y" =3D hey, there are no objects!
"-e" =3D listen up, there's an object as well.
"-u" =3D look out, two objects coming your way!
"-i" =3D what? Not even a subject?

Then I might expand this into:
"-er" =3D there's an object and it's 1p. (I.e. probably me)
"-et" =3D one object and it's 2p.
"-ek" =3D one object, 3p.
etc.
=3D> Na mrinek nando.=20
1p.sg. eat.1obj.3p food.
=20
This might be really fun!

Do you have any comments?

Daniel Andreasson