Re: Question about transitivity/intransitivity

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