Re: Question about transitivity/intransitivity

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sally Caves 

  Correction again... I am WAAAAY too tired.  


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Sally Caves 
    To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU 
    Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:47 AM
    Subject: Re: Question about transitivity/intransitivity


    There are what they call absolute and unaccusative transitives, Thomas.  Absolute accusatives 

    ABSOLUTE TRANSITIVES.

 require a direct object, like "assassinate" or "prefer." A subcategory of
absolute transitives are those that imply an object, like "eat," or "kill." You
can eat an apple, but you can also be eating (something left implied). That's
what your verb is doing. Unaccusatives, however, can function both as
transitives and intransitives: 1) I sink the ship, 2) I sink down. 3) I melted
the ice, 4) the ice melted. Your verb eat is of the absolute intransitive type
with implied object.

    Does that help?

    Sally Caves
    scaves@frontiernet.net
    Eskkoat ol ai sendran, rohsan nuehra celyil takrem bomai nakuo.
    "My shadow follows me, putting strange, new roses into the world."


     
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Thomas Leigh 
      To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU 
      Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:29 PM
      Subject: Question about transitivity/intransitivity


 Okay, this is probably a stupid question and I should know the answer, but I
wanted to ask because I'm unsure.

 A transitive verb is one which can take a direct object, e.g. "eat". An
intransitive verb is one which cannot, e.g. "go". So what if which *can* take a
direct object is used *without* one? E.g. you can say "I am eating an apple",
which is obviously transitive, because the direct object is there. But what
about something like "What are you doing?"/ "I am eating." Are those verbs
still transitive? Or have they become intransitive?

      Thomas