This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

These are two seminal works in transitivity research. I'll update the page with info on them in the next few days.

I removed this text from the article. Hopper and Thompson's (1980) list is a more complete coverage of this material, and some of these examples were poor ('throw' does NOT effect a change of state in the O argument, for example)

"*A change of state in the object - for example, smash, open, throw.

• Agency and volition by the subject - where these are frequently absent in intransitive verbs, such as I sank or it broke.
• Intensity of effect or change in the object - compare I shot at the deer (intransitive) versus I shot the deer (transitive)."

[User:Escamilla|Escamilla] 13:58, 22 Dec 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Escamilla (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

Seriously, "Did you just poop your pants?" is a question with a transitive verb (poop) and is an awesome case of transitivity. I don't know why that keeps getting taken out of the article. It is a fine example, educational, and also interesting because most people do not think of the word poop as a transitive verb! It is only a transitive verb when used in conjunction with pants, and is therefore far more interesting than any of the other listed transitive verb examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.207.236 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Hungarian, but that distinction doesn't seem to be a clear-cut transitivity difference. Maybe remove in favour of a better example? Slac speak up! 07:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the concern, possibly helping to improve the article. I admit I am not an expert in linguistics, maybe not even an educated laic. I have learned two Eskimo languages since some years, and Hungarian is my mother tongue, but I am not expert in how concepts like "grammatical category" are defined exactly (lacking even knowledge what we should call "cases" exactly in Hungarian[1][2]).

As for transitivity, You cannot use a verb in Hungarian without an "agreement"[3] with the definiteness of its object (if any, lack of object counts as indefinite). The exact rules are sophisticated (e.g. if the object is possessed by a possessor, expressed by possessive syntagm, then it counts automatically as definite), but anyay, the distinction appears in the paradigm of the verb in a mandatory way, just like tense or number.

Eskimo languages have an ergative construct.

Although transitivity is really sometimes mentioned as a grammatical category,[4][5][6][7] but I admit, I am afraid now that "my" article introduces this concept from a too particular point of view and examples, maybe losing an appropriate general introduction of the concept. I suspect transitivity is a more general concept, used not only for languages which have in which transitivity appears in a mandatory way in the choice of paradigm of the verb. Maybe the article would deserve a template warning of that (I do not know its right name).

As for Your original question, I did not understand it well. Could You write the details why and how the examples should be changed?

Physis (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen just now that You rewrited the article. Thank You very much for that. I find it very probably that my lead text and explanatory texts might be narrow or inappropriate. As for the examples, paradigm tables, it would be a help for me to understand why they are not right here. Maybe then I can help to find better ones (possibly from another Uralic language, or from Siberian Yupik or Sireniki Eskimo). The distinction between transitive and intransitive paradigm of the verb permeates Hungarian language, and is surely mandatory. Physis (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lacrimosus that *transitivity* does not trigger a distinction in Hungarian verb morphology per se. Consider sentences like "Látok." or "I see", intransitive, and "Látok egy kutyát." or "I see a dog", transitive. The latter example is clearly transitive rather than intransitive. With a definite object, the verb form changes: "Látom a kutyát." or "I see the dog." So I think it's misleading to write that transitivity is marked on the verb in Hungarian, as the same verb form can appear in intransitive and transitive contexts. Andraas (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a note mentioning a reference that You have deleted from the bibliography. The note itself is left "broken", I suspect the inconsistency must be resolved, either by deleting also the note (maybe together with the sentence supported by the note), or by reinserting the deleted bibliographical data. I shall wait with this choice till knowing Your answer, because You seem to have a better knowledge of the concept itself, capable of judging better what kind of the details and examples are worth being mentioned. Physis (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be reinserted. I will do this tomorrow, or you can, if you want. Slac speak up! 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in examples where there is an object but it is not stated? For example, in the phrase, Miranda played outside, there is an object because Miranda was playing something, a game possibly, but we have not said what it was. In such examples, is the verb transitive because there is an (unstated) object, is it intransitive because the object is not stated, or is it something else? And does this need to be added to the article? Cottonshirtτ 05:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to why "sat" is an intransitive verb. Yeah, "I sat a chair" doesn't make sense, but why wouldn't the phrase "I sat her" mark "sat" for transitivity? In my admittedly inexperienced brain, they seem to be direct objects:

RUS: Я сидела ее

GER: Ich setzte ihr

ENG: I sat her

(Forgive my Russian and German; they're a little rusty.)

Perhaps it's because there's usually a "down" (I sat her down) or because I'm using "sat" in the same way as "seated" (I seated her)? Or as far as English is concerned, is that an ergative parading as transitivity?

I get the feeling I'm going to have to unlearn everything I learned about transitivity, bitransitivity, and intransitivity and start over... 74.177.127.136 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have created this sidebar and would like to include it on this page. However, per this page, "few articles have more than one sidebar." Should I replace the current sidebar with the more specialized sidebar? What is the best way to go about this problem since the new sidebar revolves heavily around the topic of transitivity? Joeystanley (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Transitivity is a property of verbs" is equivocally narrow. It should be verb forms since, in English, transitivity also comprehends:

• a property of gerunds: "I'm tired of lending you money."
• a property of present participles: "They're winning the game."
• a property of past participles: "It's taken me 5 minutes to type this;" (adjectival past participle) "Died of a broken heart."

Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]