Re: Question about transitivity/intransitivity

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

Replies