Re: Question about transitivity/intransitivity

Correction:


  ----- 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 INTRANSITIVES.

 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

Reply