0
Anonymous Posted 18 years ago
Grammar

transitive/intransitive verb?

Hello, I'm an 8th grader, second year in canada from korea, and there is this thing that's been bothering me since last year. When I look up in wikipedia and such other sources, they say that a transitive verb is a verb that requires both a direct subject and one or more objects. Does that mean a sentense with a transitive verb will not make sense if it didn't have a subject and an object?

"Harry sees Adam." is one of the examples given in wikipedia, and why can't "Harry sees." be a complete sentense? I'm sure there is something catastrophically wrong with the way I'm thinking, and I would like very much to end it ASAP.

I mean, it's not like I'm going to run into this in an english class anytime soon(I don't think), but this first came up last year when I was searching up words on dictionary.com, and kept doing so a several different times ever since. Can anyone please help?
  

Top answer

A verb that exists ONLY as a transitive verb will not make sense without the object. You are correct. Harry set the keys on the table .

  • A verb that exists ONLY as a transitive verb will not make sense without the object.
  • You are correct.
  • Harry set the keys on the table .
  • vs.
  • Harry set .
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

1 Answers
0
A verb that exists ONLY as a transitive verb will not make sense without the object. You are correct.

Harry set the keys on the table. vs. Harry set. The second one does not make snese. Harry sees the cat makes sense. Harry sees does not, unless you are describing some bizarre situation in which you mean that Harry is able to experience the sense of sight. (May

Related Questions