Psyxwar's EngLang Question Thread

[psyxwar]

This will just be a general thread for questions of mine relating to the Eng Lang course, so I don't end up making tonnes of threads!

---

I'm a little confused on transitive and intransitive verbs. Are only verbs that cannot take direct objects (in a given context) intransitive verbs (so something like "the plants wilted")? Or would a verb that makes sense both with and without a direct object also be considered an intransitive? (eg. They ate/ They ate pasta).

[ealam2]

This will just be a general thread for questions of mine relating to the Eng Lang course, so I don't end up making tonnes of threads!

---

I'm a little confused on transitive and intransitive verbs. Are only verbs that cannot take direct objects (in a given context) intransitive verbs (so something like "the plants wilted")? Or would a verb that makes sense both with and without a direct object also be considered an intransitive? (eg. They ate/ They ate pasta).

Transitive verb has to have a direct object. (e.g. I wrote a letter.)
usually no preposition after transitive verbs as they are followed by the direct object.

Intransitive verb cannot take a direct object.

e.g. This plant has thrived on the south windowsill.
Prepositional phrase 'on the south windowsill' is not the direct object as it is describing where the plant thrives so is an adverb.

Here's a link: http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

[teletubbies_95]

HEYY!
Yay! Your doing eng Lang!
From what I've learnt so far , is that Intransitve verbs don't take an object at all , while transitive takes a direct object and distransitive , takes both a direct and indirect object!
Regarding to your question, I think it depends on the context.
So in " they ( subject ) ate ( verb) pasta (direct object) , the " ate " would be transitive in the context ! while in they ( subject ) ate( verb) , would be intransitive in that context!

It's great that your actually learning these terms !  I started learning this sorta stuff during the holidays!

[psyxwar]

HEYY!
Yay! Your doing eng Lang!
From what I've learnt so far , is that Intransitve verbs don't take an object at all , while transitive takes a direct object and distransitive , takes both a direct and indirect object!
Regarding to your question, I think it depends on the context.
So in " they ( subject ) ate ( verb) pasta (direct object) , the " ate " would be transitive in the context ! while in they ( subject ) ate( verb) , would be intransitive in that context!

It's great that your actually learning these terms !  I started learning this sorta stuff during the holidays!

Haha yeah I am!  It's quite an interesting subject actually; I'm glad I picked it up!

Yeah that's what I meant; sorry I should've made myself clearer. I was confused about whether or not "ate" would be considered intransitive in "they ate" and transitive in "they ate pasta" or just transitive in both. I thought it was contextual, but after reading some articles on the internet (including the one ealam linked to below) I'm not too sure anymore.

Transitive verb has to have a direct object. (e.g. I wrote a letter.)
usually no preposition after transitive verbs as they are followed by the direct object.

Intransitive verb cannot take a direct object.

e.g. This plant has thrived on the south windowsill.
Prepositional phrase 'on the south windowsill' is not the direct object as it is describing where the plant thrives so is an adverb.

Here's a link: http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

So you're saying that a verb is transitive if it, in a given context, has the capacity of taking a direct object (regardless of whether or not it actually takes a direct object)? I've actually read that link and it's what confused me. What would you classify something like "I ate" then? The verb in this case is still able to take a direct object (to use the example of "I ate pasta").

[ealam2]

Haha yeah I am!  It's quite an interesting subject actually; I'm glad I picked it up!

Yeah that's what I meant; sorry I should've made myself clearer. I was confused about whether or not "ate" would be considered intransitive in "they ate" and transitive in "they ate pasta" or just transitive in both. I thought it was contextual, but after reading some articles on the internet (including the one ealam linked to below) I'm not too sure anymore.
So you're saying that a verb is transitive if it, in a given context, has the capacity of taking a direct object (regardless of whether or not it actually takes a direct object)? I've actually read that link and it's what confused me. What would you classify something like "I ate" then? The verb in this case is still able to take a direct object (to use the example of "I ate pasta").

Sorry about confusing you further. I'm doing English Language 1&2 as well this year so not an expert on anything.
But I think the verb will be classified as transitive or intransitive based on the sentence. So if I say, "The boy played." Played would be intransitive since there is no direct object in this clause
while "The boy played the piano." Played here would be transitive as there is a direct object in this sentence.

I hope this link would not confuse you any further and will actually answer your questions.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Transitive-and-Intransitive-Verbs.topicArticleId-251279,articleId-251223.html

If you're not sure, ask your teacher or someone who has done English Language before. Sorry again about the confusion.

[psyxwar]

Sorry about confusing you further. I'm doing English Language 1&2 as well this year so not an expert on anything.
But I think the verb will be classified as transitive or intransitive based on the sentence. So if I say, "The boy played." Played would be intransitive since there is no direct object in this clause
while "The boy played the piano." Played here would be transitive as there is a direct object in this sentence.

I hope this link would not confuse you any further and will actually answer your questions.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Transitive-and-Intransitive-Verbs.topicArticleId-251279,articleId-251223.html

If you're not sure, ask your teacher or someone who has done English Language before. Sorry again about the confusion.

Thanks, and no worries . Yup, that's what my book seems to suggest, so I'll just assume it's that.

[meepcat]

Verbs can be both transitive and intransitive depending on context - transitivity is about the number of object arguments within the sentence.

If you're looking at the conceptual 'objects' of a verb, then check out valency.  For example, if you think about 'eat', it DOES require something to be eaten - which may or may not be stated in the rest of the predicate. "I eat" is therefore using "eat" as an intransitive verb, but it is considered divalent - as there is an implied "object that is eaten" even if it's not explicitly stated.

Enjoy!

-MC

[psyxwar]

Verbs can be both transitive and intransitive depending on context - transitivity is about the number of object arguments within the sentence.

If you're looking at the conceptual 'objects' of a verb, then check out valency.  For example, if you think about 'eat', it DOES require something to be eaten - which may or may not be stated in the rest of the predicate. "I eat" is therefore using "eat" as an intransitive verb, but it is considered divalent - as there is an implied "object that is eaten" even if it's not explicitly stated.

Enjoy!

-MC

Thank-you!

What's a good/ effective way to learn the IPA?

[teletubbies_95]

I made flashcards !

[ealam2]

Do we have to memorise the actual IPA or just how it helps in the nature and function of language?

[AbominableMowman]

Do we have to memorise the actual IPA or just how it helps in the nature and function of language?

Although in Unit 1/2 you don't have to memorize it, memorizing helps especially for 3/4 apparently.

[psyxwar]

Although in Unit 1/2 you don't have to memorize it, memorizing helps especially for 3/4 apparently.

Yup so might as well start now.

[psyxwar]

In the sentence "the girl saw some ducks", would "saw some ducks" be considered a verb phrase that can further be broken down into the verb "saw" and the noun phrase "some ducks", or would I be better off just saying "saw" is a verb phrase and that "some ducks" is a noun phrase?

[hardo]

Hi, just putting it out there that, in 3/4, you do not have any need to memorise the IPA, or really have much knowledge of it. For the more advanced student, perhaps memorising the IPA of certain words could add something extra to an essay when discussing vowel sounds, accents for example. Have a grounded understanding of its function and purpose.

[ealam2]

Hi, just putting it out there that, in 3/4, you do not have any need to memorise the IPA, or really have much knowledge of it. For the more advanced student, perhaps memorising the IPA of certain words could add something extra to an essay when discussing vowel sounds, accents for example. Have a grounded understanding of its function and purpose.

Thank you!