"watch" is transitive, but "look at" is

English grammar and usage issues

Moderator: Susan

Kean
Registered Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 13:07

"watch" is transitive, but "look at" is

Unread postby Kean » 19 Oct 2007, 13:13

"Wait (for)" and "look (at)" are described as intransitive. Yet I would define them as non-idiomatic (or literal) phrasal verbs. A phrasal verb can be transitive, so why are these verbs described as intransitive???

Chopvac
Silver Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 19:01
Location: Taiwan

Unread postby Chopvac » 19 Oct 2007, 23:21

"Wait" and "look" are only transitive if used as phrasal verbs, not as regular verbs.

As transitives:
"Let's wait for him."
"Let's look for him."
"Let's look at it."

As intransitives:
"Let's wait."
"Let's look."

Regular and phrasal verbs are not the same animal.

matthau
Silver Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 10:42

Re: "watch" is transitive, but "look at" is

Unread postby matthau » 25 Mar 2008, 20:24

I think, you are right, Kean. As long as these phrasal verbs aren't used idiomatically, they reveal their transitive meanings. So depending upon the preposition they can either be transitive or intransitive. For example, 'look at' I would classify as transitive, and 'look after' as intransitive. Consequently, in 'look at the boy', 'the boy' is a direct object, and in 'look after the boy', it is a prepositional one.


Return to “Grammar and Usage”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests