3

In English it doesn't sound natural to say "I fished a fish." You would say "I caught a fish." However, in the instances where I can think of using fish as a verb, it must take a preposition (around, for, in, about).

I went fishing in the lake

good

I went fishing the lake

not good

Does "fish" act as a transitive verb? In English, is there a grammatical term for verbs that require a preposition? Can these verbs still be transitive?

I found this entry in an online dictionary, but honestly I have never heard of the verb fish taking what appears be an object. Let's fish the creek just sounds wrong to my ears.

Neeku
  • 3,786
  • 6
  • 34
  • 45
discardthis
  • 41
  • 1
    Hey there, Discardthis, welcome to ELU, by officially selecting the first (and only) answer posted, you have 1) made a "choice" without benefit of comparison; and 2) disincentivized any further community involvement in your post. Whereas, by postponing selection until others have responded you avail yourself of the wider community and the opportunity to make a choice based upon comparison. :-) –  Feb 08 '15 at 06:26
  • 1
    Stackoverflow makes users wait at least 15 minutes before answering...not sure why this can't be just a standard feature, although I agree with the reasoning. – discardthis Feb 08 '15 at 06:35
  • 1
    Hey now! :-) What's your hurry? I was considering a response to your OP until I saw that the checkmark was 'ticked.' Whereas, if you let it ride before official selection you'll generate more answers, more commentary, and more rep! Thanks :-) –  Feb 08 '15 at 07:13
  • @discardthis - feel free to untick that checkmark! I'm curious to read other answers. (0: – CowperKettle Feb 08 '15 at 07:25

2 Answers2

6

In some of its senses, fish is a transitive verb, as your dictionary entry attests:

He fished a coin out of his pocket for the boy. ("a coin" is the object)

To count as transitive, a verb must take an object. In your example sentence

I fished [around] [in my pocket] [for my keys].

.. the bracketed constituents are called not objects but "prepositional phrases". "Around" is a complement, or part of the phrasal verb "fished around", according to different grammarians.

"In my pocket" is an adjunct of place, "for my keys" is an adjunct of purpose.

Verbs that do not take direct objects are called "intransitive".

She smiled. (no object)
She smiled at me. (no object; "at me" is a complement)

Many verbs are intransitive in one sense but transitive in another sense, like to fish. So say "I fished a fish" would be ungrammatical because in this particular sense the verb is intransitive.

CowperKettle
  • 3,649
  • But how about "He fished a fish out of his pocket"? – Greg Lee Feb 08 '15 at 06:37
  • @GregLee - I guess the sense would be the same as with the coin. Even if the person uses a fishing rod to do this. (0: – CowperKettle Feb 08 '15 at 06:41
  • 1
    I think grammars conceptualize complements differently, and sentence part categories and definitions are often overlapping. From my basic understanding, there is no complement in I fished around in my pocket for my keys. It is Subject + verb (intransitive) + adverbials. Same for smiled "at me"? At least there is no "subject complement". These phrases in the predicate that add information about where and how I fished and where or how she smiled: Aren't they adverbials? Are they somehow complements? "Verb complements?" from one perspective and adverbials form another? – Jim Reynolds Feb 08 '15 at 07:35
  • 1
    @JimReynolds - a good question! I'll try to read up on this. I'm often unsure myself how to call this or that construction. I fished one answer that could be relevant to the issue out of the depths of ELU. – CowperKettle Feb 08 '15 at 07:43
  • 1
    @JimReynolds - I tangled the terminology a tad indeed. I revised it now, with some good help. – CowperKettle Feb 08 '15 at 09:24
  • 1
    Wherein @snailboat wrote: "You know, there's something called the conative alternation"? Y'all are way over my head! :D I hadn't even used the term "adjunct" until I started hanging out in SE a couple of months ago, and I'm an English teacher!! O.O – Jim Reynolds Feb 08 '15 at 10:32
  • 2
    @JimReynolds - which proves that all this jargon is not very necessary for teaching! (0: Maybe it is necessary to non-native teachers, as a useful system of coordinates allowing to not to loose one's bearings.. – CowperKettle Feb 08 '15 at 10:47
  • 2
    My theory is that we learn a language best if we use it to communicate about something we love (or, yes, perhaps fear) or about something that we believe is very important. The research pretty clearly shows that studying grammar directly does not, in general, help improve productive communication skills. But if we really enjoy it, and we increasingly use English to talk about it, well, that's good learning! – Jim Reynolds Feb 08 '15 at 10:52
  • I've read this in your user info, and I fully agree! The teacher should know some inner workings of the language, but not force them upon the pupil. They are handy to know then something needs to be explained. – CowperKettle Feb 08 '15 at 10:56
2

Actually intransitive is a rather vague term as it can mean used without object (to weep, to laugh, to sleep) or used with a preposition + noun ( to look for sth, to smile at someone). And when a verb can be connected with a preposition + noun it is always the question is it a prepositional object (to the verb, not to the preposition), or a prep + complement or an adverbial sentence part. Such as problem arises eg. with "fishing for compliments". Here I would tend to say "for compliments" is an object, a prepositional object, but I'm sure here opinions are diverging.

By the way "prepositional object" (connected to a verb) is confusing in English because in English terminology any noun after a preposition is called object.

rogermue
  • 13,878