verbos transitivos e intransitivos

Discussion in 'Spanish-English Grammar / Gramática Español-Inglés' started by Karlaina, Sep 15, 2007.

  1. Karlaina Senior Member

    I am currently here ;)
    English, United States
    Este concepto me está dando algunos problemas. :rolleyes:

    Creo que entiendo lo básico de aquel concepto: los intransitivos carecen de CD, mientras que los transitivos requieren el uso del CD. (¿Es cierto?) Algunos verbos se pueden usar de ambas maneras, ¿verdad?

    Pero........... ¿cómo clasificamos los verbos como gustar que carecen de CD, pero requieren el uso del CI?

    Gracias por su ayuda.
     
  2. Outsider Senior Member

    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Son intransitivos (con complemento indirecto).
     
  3. Karlaina Senior Member

    I am currently here ;)
    English, United States
    Oh, OK. Muy bien. Así que, si cual quier verbo carece de CD, aun si exige el uso del CI, necesariamente lo consideramos verbo intransitivo. ¿Correcto?

    Muchas gracias.
     
  4. Magmod Senior Member

    England
    England English
    Exactamente como en inglés:
    • Me gustó la película, dónde la película es el sujeto y me (a mí) el objeto indirecto.
    • Me gusta la pelicula. Literally: The movie is pleasing to me.
    • Me parece aburrida la película. Literally: Boring seems the movie to me.
    Saludos :)
     
  5. Dudu678

    Dudu678 Senior Member

    Madrid
    Español (España)
    La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo que pasa a ser sujeto en la voz pasiva.
     
  6. Magmod Senior Member

    England
    England English
    • ¿Dónde están tus ejemplos Dudu? :)
     
  7. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    Un verbo intransitivo no tiene un complemento directo, pero puede tener un complemento indirecto (C.I.). Un ejemplo con el verbo intransitivo gustar: La película [Sujeto] me [C.I.] gusta.

    Un saludo,
    Pitt
     
  8. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English

    Nooooo. In English you can't have a IO, if there's no DO.
    The movie pleases me --- me is the DO
    The movie is pleasing to me --- me is the object of the preposition to
     
  9. Magmod Senior Member

    England
    England English
    An intransitive verb has a subject but does not have an object
    She speaks
    It pleases
    I smile

    For example:
    • Her secret admirer gave her a valentine card.
    This sentence contains an indirect object. An indirect object is, in a sense, the recipient of the direct object.
    To determine if a verb has an indirect object, isolate the verb and ask to whom? to what?, for whom?, or for what? after it. The answer is the indirect object.

    Q: To whom did the movie please?
    Answer: to me :)
     
  10. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English
    The verb in your sentence "the movie is pleasing to me" is is. Pleasing is a present participle/ adjective. It is not part of the verb (i.e. it's not the same as, say, is running).

    To be is a linking or copulative verb. These verbs have neither DO's or IO's, and they are neither transitive nor intransitive. They have either a predicate nominative (a noun word or phrase that renames the subject of the sentence) or a predicate adjective (an adjectival word or phrase that describes/modifies the subject of the sentence).

    In this case, pleasing to me is the predicate adjective. To me is a prepositional phrase that completes the meaning of pleasing. Me is the object of the preposition to.
    -------------------------------------------------------

    From englishplus.com:

    <<An indirect object precedes the direct object and tells to whom or for whom the action of the verb is done and who is receiving the direct object. There must be a direct object to have an indirect object. Indirect objects are usually found with verbs of giving or communicating like give, bring, tell, show, take, or offer. An indirect object is always a noun or pronoun which is not part of a prepositional phrase>>
     
  11. lazarus1907 Senior Member

    Lincoln, England
    Spanish, Spain
    Un verbo transitivo se construye normalmente con complemento directo, y es intransitivo en caso contrario. Sin embargo, un verbo típicamente transitivo puede usarse como intransitivo si se prescinde del complemento directo. Ej. "Estoy pensando" (pensar es transitivo).
    Perdona, pero no estoy de acuerdo. La definición de verbo transitivo es que se construye con complemento directo, ya que algunos verbos transitivos no pueden pasarse a pasiva.
     
  12. Karlaina Senior Member

    I am currently here ;)
    English, United States
    Gracias a todos.

    Como no tenemos en inglés intransitivos que requieren el uso de los CIs, no sabía si verbos como gustar, faltar, importar, etc se clasificaron de otra manera.

    Gracias por su ayuda. :)
     
  13. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English
    ¿Es esto lo que se denomina 'verbo absoluto'? (un verbo que por naturaleza es transitivo, pero que aparece sin complemento directo en una oración).
     
  14. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    Por ejemplo tener es un verbo transitivo, pero no es posible la pasiva:

    Tengo un coche [C.D.] > no se dice: *Un coche es tenido por mí.

    Pitt
     
  15. San Senior Member

    Spanish
    El verbo gustar no requiere un CI. Lo mismo pasa con faltar e importar. Si quieres aquí tienes algunos ejemplos de gustar sin complemento indirecto:

    Como usted guste.
    Su actitud no gustó nada.
    Gusta de salir a pasear por las tardes.

    Otros foreros con más conocimientos de gramática quizás te puedan orientar sobre el concepto de verbos que requieren un CI, a mí me suena un poco raro.

    Saludos.
     
  16. Outsider Senior Member

    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Creo que lo que Karlaina quería decir era que el verbo gustar se puede usar con CI y sin CD.
     
  17. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English
    El verbo gustar puede ser transitivo o intransitivo, con construcciones y significados distintos. Como intransitivo exige CI sólo en la acepción 1.a) del DPD:

    <<gustar. 1. Cuando significa ‘causar, o sentir, placer o atracción’ es intransitivo y puede construirse de dos formas:
    a) El sujeto es la causa del placer o la atracción, y la persona que lo siente se expresa mediante un complemento indirecto: «Vos me gustás mucho» (Rovner Pareja [Arg. 1976]); «Le gustaban la buena música y los buenos libros» (Palou Carne [Esp. 1975]). Esta es la construcción normal en el habla corriente.
    b) La persona que siente el placer es el sujeto y aquello que lo causa se expresa mediante un complemento introducido por de: «Gustaba de reunirse con amigos en su casa» (UPietri Oficio [Ven. 1976]). Es construcción documentada sobre todo en la lengua escrita. Debe evitarse la omisión de la preposición de, frecuente cuando el complemento regido es un infinitivo: Barcelona y Tenerife, dos conjuntos que gustan jugar al ataque» (Vanguardia [Esp.] 22.3.94).
    2. Como transitivo significa ‘querer o desear’ y su empleo es escaso fuera de fórmulas de cortesía: «¿Gusta usted una cerveza?» (Victoria Casta [Méx. 1995]); «¿Le molesto si escucho las noticias? Haga como guste» (Plaza Cerrazón [Ur. 1980]).>>
     
  18. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English
    En inglés:
    - los verbos transitivos llevan CD, y a veces CI
    - los verbos intransitivos no llevan ni CD ni CI.

    En español:
    -los verbos transitivos llevan CD
    -los verbos intransitivos pueden llevar CI, pero no siempre lo hacen.
     
  19. San Senior Member

    Spanish
    Pero nada impide omitir el CI, ¿no?. Por ejemplo:

    El cricket no gusta mucho aquí en España.
     
  20. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English
    Creo que, en tu ejemplo, el CI se ha elidido:

    El cricket no gusta mucho [a la gente] aquí en España.

    A ver qué dicen los demás.
     
  21. Outsider Senior Member

    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Su ejemplo me parece incorrecto. "Cricket doesn't like much here in Spain"...? :confused:
     
  22. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English
    Sin embargo, es castellano correcto. O, por lo menos, así lo veo yo.
     
  23. Outsider Senior Member

    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Podría ser un uso inacusativo de "gustar" que no conozco. Me gustaría oír de los hispanohablantes...
     
  24. San Senior Member

    Spanish
  25. Outsider Senior Member

    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Gracias. ¡Qué curioso!
     
  26. Dudu678

    Dudu678 Senior Member

    Madrid
    Español (España)
    La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo que en la forma pasiva, si la hay, pasa a ser sujeto. :D
     
  27. lazarus1907 Senior Member

    Lincoln, England
    Spanish, Spain
    Y si no la hay, ¿cómo usamos la definición para saber si un verbo es transitivo o no? Es decir: vemos un verbo en una frase, y no puede pasarse a pasiva. ¿Es transitivo, o no?
     
  28. lazarus1907 Senior Member

    Lincoln, England
    Spanish, Spain
    Esta frase es correcta, aun sin "a la gente".
     
  29. Dudu678

    Dudu678 Senior Member

    Madrid
    Español (España)
    Si no puede pasarse a pasiva nos quedamos en la primera parte.

    La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo (cut).

    Lo otro es la explicación de qué puede pasar con ese complemento directo. Nada, que no me pillas dos veces. :)
     
  30. Karlaina Senior Member

    I am currently here ;)
    English, United States
    El ejemplo sí es correcto; es la traducción que te está dando problemas. ;) Ten quidado usando el verbo "to like" para traducir el verbo "gustar."

    "Gustar" = to be pleasing [to]; to be liked [by]

    Entonces, la traducción sería: Cricket isn't liked much [by the people] here in Spain.

    iEsto a mí siempre me da problemas, también!

    Pues, a todos los que respondieron. Me quedo mareada pero informada. Me interesó eso del concepto del "verbo absoluto," pero no encuetro dónde hallar más información. ¿Alguna idea?

    Mil gracias a todos. :)
     
  31. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Englishplus's underlined statement there is an oversimplification. There is no direct object in -"I told her" -- and yet 'her' is still clearly the IO. Yes, I know that the 'implied' DO is 'it' - "I told it to her" or "I told her it". But their definition is incomplete and therefore misleading. -- I do disagree with Magmod's original statement that "it's just like English" with regard to the 'is pleasing' sentence. That sentence doesn't have a transitive nor intransitive verb, but rather a copulative verb which doesn't take a DO or an IO. "Gustar", when meaning 'agradar', is intransitive in Spanish and takes a CI.

    Grant
     
  32. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    I'm not sure I agree, Laz. Elided sentences aren't "technically" correct without the elided portion. "Gustar", meaning 'agradar' requires a CI to be correct per my grammars. Without the CI the sentence is syntactically lacking -- therefore 'incorrect'. I believe it is 'descriptively common' -but it is not technically correct. Can you provide support for the idea that 'intransitive' "gustar", when meaning 'agradar', can exist without a stated CI? I could be misunderstanding my grammars -- and I'm open to changing my thinking. I just need to see some support.

    Grant
     
  33. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Poder pasar al pasivo no tiene nada que ver con el tema. Así que, opino que complica el tema en mencionarlo. La definición es simplemente que puede llevar complemento directo. Nada más.

    Como dice el DRAE:

    verbo transitivo. 1. m. Gram. El que se construye con complemento directo; p. ej., amar a Dios, decir la verdad.
     
  34. virgilio Senior Member

    English UK
    Magmod,
    Re your:
    "An intransitive verb has a subject but does not have an object
    She speaks
    It pleases
    I smile

    For example:
    • Her secret admirer gave her a valentine card.
    This sentence contains an indirect object. An indirect object is, in a sense, the recipient of the direct object.
    To determine if a verb has an indirect object, isolate the verb and ask to whom? to what?, for whom?, or for what? after it. The answer is the indirect object.

    I know what you mean but I suggest that using the verb "to give" as an example of an intransitive verb (if I have understood you aright) could lead to confusion, for that verb is very frequently used transitively, as indeed it is in the sentence you cite:
    "
    Her secret admirer gave her a valentine card."
    The verb object (aka CD) here is plainly "(a valentine) card". The presence of a dative (aka indirect object aka CI) is not of itself a sign of an intransitive verb.
    I suppose, if you wanted to use "to give" intransitively, you could use "gimme!"

    Best wishes
    Virgilio
     
  35. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English
    In I told her, the IO is her. There is definitely a DO, which is implicit in that particular sentence, but needs to be explicitly stated in the context in which I told her is said or written:

    Person 1: Mary heard the news
    Person 2: How did she find out?
    Person 3: I told her

    The DO here is news. Without this DO in the overall context, I told her is nonsense and ungrammatical. Ergo, to parse it is absurd.

    Therefore, the rule holds. There cannot be an IO without a DO.
     
  36. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    I guess what I'm saying is that grammatically speaking an IO often appears with a transitive verb and without a DO. "Implied", in many cases, sure. Agreed. But saying "I told her" is far from ungrammatical nonsense when a speaker and hearer are talking to each other and they know that the 'unsaid DO' is.

    As I said - that definition was an oversimplification with regard to sentence structure that a non-native would come across in many writings they will see. Good definitions have to explain for the syntax that exists in the real world of speech, writing and dialog.

    I wrote(VT) to him(IO) yesterday.
    I teach(VT) those kids(IO) every year.

    Right there shows at least two examples where the DO is not mentioned nor one implied or even remotely pertinent to the sentence. The rule, as stated, is practically non utilitarian for the learner of English -- who, upon the reading of such common sentences, would be feverishly looking for the 'DO' --since the 'rule says it has to be there'. :) Given that I'm pretty sure you won't tell me that those two sentences are grammatical nonsense -- can you tell me the implied thing that 'was written' in number 1? Email, Letter, directions?? Does it matter? Not a bit. In #2 -- does it matter what is taught every year? Not a bit. So 'is there' an implied direct object in those sentences? Is it required? Pretty hard to prove.

    That's my point. There are probably scores of other sentences I could come up with containing transitive verbs and only IO in the sentence that are complete thoughts without any discernible DO germane to the communication.

    Grant
     
  37. Magmod Senior Member

    England
    England English
    I thought Newdestiny explained it correctly with:
    • I told her
    • I wrote to him yesterday …etc.
    But
    • gimme = give it to me > has CD = it, and CI = to me
    • = according to Jeromed not CI but the object of to post# 10 :confused:
    :arrow: In Post #4, I tried to explain that gustar is intransitive and translated it as is pleasing instead of like thus avoiding the problem of the subject in English becoming the object in Spanish.
    • Me gusta la pelicula ( subject) = I (subject) like the movie(object) = Literally: The movie (subject) is pleasing to me.
    :arrow: The original question post#1 is solved with the literal translation and makes sense why the verb is in the plural both in English and Spanish.
    • Me gustan las peliculas = The movies are pleasing to me.
    • I like the movies > doesn’t make sense of why gustan is used in the plural.
    In general one needs the CI in English with intransitive verbs or copulative verbs when translating intransitive verbs: me gusta, me parece etc.

    Best regards :)
     
  38. Jeromed Banned

    USA, English
    Depends on who you listen to. :confused:

    Yesterday, when you gave I told her as an example of a sentence with an IO but no DO, my first reaction was to write that her was not a IO there, but a DO, since that's what I had learned in high school English. However, since I had nothing at hand to back me up, I edited my post, but the question continued to nag at me.

    Well, last night I checked my trustworthy Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, and this is what they have to say (Chapter 4, section 4.3 Ditransitive clauses):

    <<In canonical clauses containing just one object, that object is always a direct object, even if it corresponds semantically to the indirect object of a ditransitive clause:

    i She teaches the first-year students introductory logic [IO + DO]

    ii She teaches introductory logic. [DO with semantic role of ditransitive DO]

    iii She teaches the first-year students [DO with semantic role of ditransitive IO] >>

    They go on to say:

    <<...Except in certain non-canonical constructions (such as the passive), therefore, an IO is found only in combination with a DO.>>

    BTW, they also hold that in John gives the book to Mary, Mary is not an IO, but the object of the preposition to!

    Too bad there's no English RAE, so that we can say "this is what's considered standard." :(

    (My intent here has not been to argue, but to show you a different point of view in the 'democratic' Anglo-Saxon language world).

    Take care.
     
  39. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Good.. Well now we have a horse of a completely different color. My main and only reason for entering this thread was to react to the oversimplification from that other source of yours. The 'fact' is: that a 'syntactic' indirect object can appear with a transitive verb without a 'syntactic' direct object as my two examples prove. Often grammarians overstep their role to make everything 'work' in a nice neat little package. When presented with the problem sentences like I posed that 'break their rules' they have to bring semantics into the issue -- which is, kinda like cheating, or make up another 'pseudo-syntax' like ditransitive to explain the phenomenon.

    Ironically, given what i just said, I like Cambridge's explanation and unlike your other source it is at least "complete". What I feared with your first source was that non natives would try to conclude that 'her' was a Direct Object in "I told her" which it is not.. At least it's not a 'syntactic DO'.

    And as I read it again I have to take exception to their opening statement. A 'syntactic indirect object' can be a 'semantic direct object' -- not the other way around. A person who is the beneficiary of a verb's action is the 'syntactic indirect object' by all definitions I've ever read. 'her' in "I told her" still has 'her' being a beneficiary not the syntactic direct object of telling. You're right - there is no English RAE and so each grammarian can 'make their own conclusions'. So unfortunately I have to accept 'your opinion' on this topic and you have to accept my 'opinion'. ;-) I'm so glad for the RAE -- except when they disagree with me... :D

    Grant
     

Share This Page