the verb "to bind"

Question

I am confused about the verb "to bind" (sorry that I can not come up with non-science scenarios)
I've seen both usages

(a) Protein X can bind to DNA

(b) Protein X can bind DNA

Are these two sentences describing the same scenario ?

Avangi · Accepted Answer

.

Seraphin (a) Protein X can bind to DNA
(b) Protein X can bind DNA

Are these two sentences describing the same scenario ? Yes and no. I guess the result is the same if I join you or you join me, but you could say that in a sense, the scenario is different.

The verb "to bind" may be either transitive or intransitive. (a) is intransitive; (b) is transitive. Many verbs may be only one or the other.

(b) is like "I hug you." I do something to you. "You" is the direct object of the transitive verb. The object is necessary to complete the sentence grammatically. (I know "I hug." is possible as a sentence, but then I guess "hug" would be considered intransitive.)

(a) is like "I stick to you." "Stick" is intransitive here, and the prepositional phrase "to you" is extra. That is, grammatically, "I stick." is a complete sentence, just like, "I can bind." (I am capable of binding.) In my sentence, "to you" modifies the verb "stick," giving additional information.

I'm having trouble with this, as you can probably tell, since all the verbs here may be both transitive and intransitive, and you don't know until you complete the sentence which is which.

When you say "I can bind to you," "you" sounds like the direct object of a transitive verb, but it is not. I'm trying to think of better examples, and failing miserably. - A.

Edit. Of course, "to stick" can also be transitive. "Please stick a stamp on that envelope." "Stick A to B." Likewise "to bind" (with a rope): "Bind A to B."

Seraphin · Answer

Thanks for the elaborated explanation. It clarifies some of my confusion.
I wonder in the usage of "to bind" (other examples welcome), do these two usages (transitive vs. intransitive) convey different meanings? Personally I can't think of a better example where tr vs. intr could mean two different things, but in the case of "to bind",

Random House says

"as an intransitive, it means "to become compact/to be obligatory/to restrict/to stick fast"

while as a transitive, it means "to fasten/tie up/cause to cohere ... etc"

In my example, it seems more fit to use the verb only as a transitive (meaning-wise), but I've seen so many usages in the literature

that use the verb as an intransitive for the same meaning, I was wondering if the latter usage is a mistake made by non-native speaker"

To make this a bit more complicated, American Heritage says something different (or simply a result of my own interpretation),

v. tr. to tie/fasten by encircling/bandage/hold ... etc

v. intr to tie up/stick (and others that fall in Random House's definition)

It seems that in AmE, either tr or intr, "to bind" CAN mean "to tie up", whereas in BrE, only the transitive usage would convey the meaning of "to tie up"

Any comment?

Avangi · Answer

I see no problem in using them interchangeably in your original example. Conventions are often developed within a community of experts such as nuclear biologists, etc. They may bend what the academic grammarians would recommend, but I don't see anything like that in the present case. It's an interesting one, because the intransitive version seems to require an object, resembling "I do something to you." (I hit you. - transitive) (I stick to you. I bond to you. - intransitive) I'm sure it's deceptive to someone learning English, but I assure you as a native speaker the distinction is clear.

There may be some context where "bond DNA" would be favored over "bond to DNA," but I can't think of one offhand. The process and the result are obviously the same in both versions.

I'm puzzled by your suggestion that "to bind" is a great example of tr. and intr. having different meanings. I would have said the opposite.

I can't seem to come up with anything. We harden the steel by heat treating it. This epoxy hardens in only five minutes. The major difference between this and the "bond" example is that in the bond example, X molecule is the subject of both sentences. X molecule is the actor, whether tr. or intr. But in the hardening example, epoxy is the subject of the intr. verb, while we is the subject of the tr. verb. I think that's the special thing about the bond example that makes it so hard to figure.

Hopefully California Jim will stop by. He's quite conversant in the field.

- A.

Seraphin · Answer

My suggestion that "to bind" is a great example ? hardly so.
The closest I found in my post says "I can't think of a "better" example where ..." , there I was referring a "better one" than the one in discussion - "to bind". Clearly "to bind" is NOT one of the better one - we both can agree on this.

Avangi · Answer

I really blew that one!

CalifJim · Answer

Seraphin(a) Protein X can bind to DNA

(b) Protein X can bind DNA

Are these two sentences describing the same scenario ?

Not to my ear. Binding to DNA means the protein attaches to the DNA. Binding the DNA means making the DNA stick together and not fall apart.
Whether scientists consistently use the verb bind in this way is perhaps doubtful. I suspect they use either grammatical form for either meaning, and expect the reader's knowledge of the specific biochemistry of the situation guide him to the correct interpretation.
CJ

the verb "to bind"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions