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

English grammar and usage issues

Moderators: Alex Case, Susan

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

Unread postby Kean » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:13 pm

"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???
Kean
Registered Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:07 pm

Unread postby Chopvac » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:21 pm

"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.
Chopvac
Silver Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Taiwan

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

Unread postby matthau » Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:24 pm

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.
matthau
Silver Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:42 am


Return to Grammar and Usage



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests