Talk:transitive verb

I've moved this page to eliminate "part of speech" from the title. It is a needless redundancy. What else can a transitive verb be? I even have doubts about whether this entry should exist at all since the concept can be adequately covered under the entry for transitive. I've removed the reference to "aiming verb". I've never heard of this phrase, and an exact search on Google gives zero results. Perhaps the original contributor may be able to cite a reference. Eclecticology 20:16 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * a transitive verb is not able to take a direct object, it requires one! My source was "Duden 9". Though i admit that the english language does not really differ between personal and inpersonal passive. So that part did not make much sense. Maybe it is best to cut the passive part since it does not say much. --Emp 10:13 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

The object can be understood or implicit without actually being expressed. The Random House Handbook states "A transitive verb transmits the action of the subject to a direct object." The question of "able" or "must" is not easily resolved, since there is some rightness in both appoaches. Most often it is the usage which determins the situation. This is more important than listing verbs as either transitive or intransitive. "Volunteer" when used a a verb usually appears intransitive. Nevertheless it takes on a wholly different character in a sentence like "The commander volunteered his troops for the dangerous mission," where the verb is used transitively. It all makes me wonder whether it might make more sense to simply say "verb" for the part of speech.

The reference to the passive did not strike me as much of a problem. My request for a reference was more in relation to the word "aiming". Eclecticology 01:05 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * I am aware that there a verbs which are (in-)transitive depending on the meaning. But in my opinion the definition of "transitive verb" states that it requires a direct object. But it should be explicitely said that there are "words", meaning a combination of letters, which have more than one meaning and can, in the case of a verb (nouns too, but who cares right now :) ), be transitive for one and intransitive for another. Would that work? --Emp 08:54 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

The meaning of "words" is not at issue here. What we seem to be debating is a matter of what comes first, the rule or the usage? I tend to favour the usage. Simply saying that a transitive verb has a direct object may be sufficient. Eclecticology 09:22 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
 * How about: "if a verb is transitive, it is accompanied by a direct object"? I personally prefer the rule or definition, since there are not too many people who intentionally debate over a verb that they are going to use while talking to a person is transitive and thus has a direct object.
 * So I would rather see this article to explain what the term (in grammar) means.

I've revised the definition based on the above. I hope it's satisfactory. You're right that people don't usually debate the grammar of a transitive verb every time they use one. Only lexicographers (amateur or professional) worry about such things. Going beyond that we have a philosophical debate about whether language and grammar is descriptive or prescriptive; that debate could last a long time. Eclecticology 18:08 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
 * Splendit! --Emp 19:41 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)