We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!

Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com


Share this topic:
This question is Not Answered
Latest post Thu, Sep 25 2008 6:26 AM by CalifJim. 4 replies.
Suggest an answer | | |
Anonymous  +  570025 Wed, 24 Sep 08 10:25 PM
I am struggling to fully understand what is meant by a 'transitive' verb. As far as I have been able to grasp it thus far, a verb is transitive if it needs an object to act on. So in;

"The man ate the food"

'ate' is transitive, because there has to be something that he ate.  However if we take;

"The train arrived in London"

'arrived' seems to be often described as intransitive in this context.  But why cannot 'London' be seen as the object in this sentence?  Afterall, the action of arriving
is being done on the object London, or am I just hopelessly confused about what 'object' means?  I can see other contexts wherein 'arrived' appears more clearly intransitive, such as;

"The train arrived ten minutes late"

But I want to be clear about whether "arrives in the station" or "arrives on my desk" can be seen as transitive uses of the verb.  It would be much appreciated if someone could kindly clarify this for me.

Thanks.

Kooyeen  +  570028 Wed, 24 Sep 08 10:33 PM
Hi,
the train doesn't do anything to London. It does something "in" London. That's where the fact happens, just the location. The train arrives. Where? In London.

As far as I know, transitive verbs are not followed by prepositions or adverbs that come between the verb and the object. It's just VERB + OBJECT, with no prepositions or adverbs in between.

I ate an apple.
I ate in the kitchen.
I ate too much.
I ate when I arrived home.


Only "an apple" is the object of "ate" used transitively, all the others are used intransitively and followed by adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions introducing an adverbial phrase (I hope it's called that way), etc.

Smile
Joined on Thu, Dec 22 2005
Italy
Senior Member 4,969
Parental Advisory / Explicit Posts
Anonymous, 1 yr 59 days ago
Thanks Kooyeen, that has really cleared things up for me.  Much appreciated!
Huevos, 1 yr 59 days ago
Anonymous
“"The train arrived in London"”
"in London" is an averbial clause.
CalifJim  +  570131 Thu, 25 Sep 08 06:26 AM
 
Anonymous
“why cannot 'London' be seen as the object in this sentence?”
Because nothing happens to London!  When the man eats the food, he acts upon the food; something happens to the food.  London just happens to be the place where the action of arriving took place.

The man ate the food in London doesn't have two objects, for example.

Nor does The man threw the paper into the wastebasket.

Smile

CJ 

Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member 22,395
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
© MediaCet Ltd. 2009, v5.0.3607.32596. All content posted by our users is a contribution to the public domain, this does not include imported usenet posts.*
For web related enquires please contact us on webmaster@mediacet.com, status updates are available at status.mediacet.com.
*Usenet post removal: Use 'X-No-Archive'. You may not have understood that your posts would end up in the public domain. Please send proof of the poster's email, we will remove immediately.