Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Question about transitivity/intransitivity

From:Pavel Iosad <edricson@...>
Date:Wednesday, May 28, 2003, 20:35
Hello,

> 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?
Here's a stupid thought: why couldn't this be what Comrie calls 'verb-deriving morphology'? While the situation in Russian is similar - both 'Ja jem' and 'Ja jem jabloko' are grammatical - I feel that in Russian there is a subtle difference in meaning - while the apple-sentence describes and actual situation, the first one means roughly 'At the moment I am an eater, one of a number of creatures which may be classified as eaters'. As far as I understand, a somewhat similar distinction exists, say, in Swedish between 'Jag har hund' = 'I am a dog-owner' and 'Jag har en hund' = 'I have (an identifiable) dog '. (I will be happy to be corrected) Now this would look like the impersonal forms - a Celtic-style impersonal of a prototypical transitive verb has only one argument - the patient, while the agent is shown by the form of the verb to be irrelevant. Perhaps we have a similar distinction of 'irrelevant object' here? Hm, that would be a good idea to have grammaticalized subject impersonals and object impersonals... *makes plans* Or am I totally off the mark? Pavel -- Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@mail.ru Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas --Scottish proverb