1

As the common definition runs, an intransitive verb doesn't need an object as in "I run in the street." But my question is why some verbs are labeled intransitive, and at the same time, they take a preposition followed by an object: For example, agonize plus over/about and then an object:

  • She agonized about what she should do.

Why shouldn't we call it a transitive verb? Other examples: apologize to, object to

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
user61883
  • 21
  • Because in that case there still isn't a direct object, since "what she should do" is still just acting as the noun part of a prepositional phrase. The sentence would still be perfectly valid and accurate if it simply read "She agonized." What she's agonizing over is just an editorial detail; icing on the cake of that sentence. – Parthian Shot Mar 26 '15 at 06:41

2 Answers2

3

In grammar, “transitive” means that the verb takes a direct object, not just an object. An object introduced by a preposition is not direct.

Ben Kovitz
  • 1,255
  • Erm, how about the verb TELL* in "Bob told me"? That seems to be transitive but doesn't have a direct object! – Araucaria - Him Apr 01 '15 at 08:54
  • @Araucaria I'm using ordinary terminology here ("the common definition"), which is not limited to syntax. In "Bob told me", there is an implied direct object: "Bob told me [something]." – Ben Kovitz Apr 01 '15 at 09:00
  • Ah, so your saying that tell is usually a transitive verb, but it's being used intransitively in this sentence? ;) – Araucaria - Him Apr 01 '15 at 09:21
  • @Araucaria No, "tell" is being used transitively in that sentence; the direct object is left to implication. – Ben Kovitz Apr 01 '15 at 09:48
  • So is teaching transitive in I am teaching right now? – Araucaria - Him Apr 01 '15 at 09:49
  • @Araucaria This can easily spiral into a useless dispute over semantics, but here goes. The word "teach" is ordinarily understood to have a transitive meaning: it only makes sense to teach something to someone. The grammar of the word "teach" gives you options for whether to assign the something or the someone to the direct object. But either way, a listener expects you to have answers in mind for both "What are you teaching right now?" and "Who are you teaching right now?" So, yes, with options for what you assign to the direct object. – Ben Kovitz Apr 01 '15 at 11:19
  • @Araucaria I would not start off with the word "teach" to, um, teach the everyday meaning of "transitive verb". I'll add some examples to the answer to clarify. But don't expect the everyday meaning to precisely distinguish every, um, case in a fully standardized way. The ordinary meaning of "transitive verb" is not scientific terminology. It's good enough that people can describe a weird problem when they see it, like "Don't put on it" (I actually saw this printed on a cardboard box from Japan). I don't think it explains when you can and can't leave a direct object to implication. – Ben Kovitz Apr 01 '15 at 11:33
  • The reason I'm gently prodding is that clauses in which verbs take objects of any sort (direct or indirect) are usually considered transitive. When the verb has no visible phrase functioning as an object, they're usually considered intransitive ... Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't believe so :) – Araucaria - Him Apr 01 '15 at 13:43
  • @Araucaria I think it's just another case of multiple, incompatible terminologies. The OED says "taking a direct object to complete the sense". But this Wikipedia page] says "a verb that takes one or more objects". But Wiktionary, MacMillan, Collins, and this Wikipedia page agree with the OED. – Ben Kovitz Apr 01 '15 at 14:25
  • 1
    @Araucaria My non-expert understanding is that "transitive verb" has usually been defined for the last ~1500 years as a verb whose meaning requires completion by an object in the accusative case; nom and acc switch when you switch to passive voice but the other cases stay the same (with occasional variations among grammarians, because there are many reasonable, very similar ways to draw grammatical distinctions). The Latin concept was force-fit onto English, etc. The traditional meaning persists in common usage, as reflected by common dictionaries. The other meaning is specialized, esoteric. – Ben Kovitz Apr 01 '15 at 14:53
  • @Araucaria BTW, I was googling to see when linguists started using "transitive" in the more general sense, and came across this paper from 1980, which proposes the most generalized notion of transitivity I've ever heard of! This 1941 Ph.D. dissertation might tell [us] when and how the terminologies diverged, but it's not on-line. :( – Ben Kovitz Apr 01 '15 at 15:33
2

An object is a special type of complement of a verb. We can think of a complement as some phrase that fills a special slot set up by another word or phrase. In the phrase:

  • apologise to someone

We have a verb apologise, which selects a preposition phrase as a complement. The preposition phrase here is to someone. This preposition phrase has an internal structure, it has a preposition as its head, to and this preposition has its own complement, the noun phrase someone. The word someone here doesn't have a special relationship with the verb, it has a relationship with the preposition. It is the preposition heading the preposition phrase which has a special relationship with the verb apologise. So because someone isn't a complement of the verb here, it cannot be considered a direct object.

Araucaria - Him
  • 47,146
  • I can tentatively conclude that the word “tree” in the examples below can be considered both as a direct object and the object of preposition when a verb has different behaviors. For example, the verb climb serves transitively (as The boy climbed the tree) and intransitively plus an adverb or preposition (as in The boy climbed up the tree). – user61883 Mar 27 '15 at 11:45
  • @user61883 Exactly so! You've got it. :) – Araucaria - Him Mar 27 '15 at 12:01