0

I have known for years that sentences do not have to contain the objects. But there are some problems I am facing with great difficulty. For example, sentences below make perfect sense.

I missed by a big margin.

I played with passion.

I wrote like a real writer.

I sat.

But some of these sentences without objects do not make sense AT ALL.

I got.

I made.

I show.

Not only do these sentences sound like cavemen, those sentences do not seem to be grammatically correct. Why is that?

  • 1
    Transitive verbs have objects. Intransitive verbs do not. Ditransitive verbs have a direct and indirect object. Some verbs can take any one of these roles, depending on context. – Anonym Aug 30 '15 at 3:03
  • So it just depends on the type of the verb? – no object Aug 30 '15 at 3:04
  • @noobject - Yes. When you look up the verb in the dictionary, notice whether it says "v.t." (transitive) or "v.i." (intransitive). – aparente001 Aug 31 '15 at 4:02
1

It's not that the last three don't make sense at all; it's that they are incomplete for most instances because all three verbs have transitive uses. But an object is not necessary to complete the sense for "got":

I got into the car.

And I can contrive a sense for "show." For this you have to know that "far along" refers to the time that a woman has been pregnant, and "show" means that it's evident that she's pregnant:

Q: I hear you're pregnant. Congratulations. How far along are you?
A: Well, I show.

0

Some verbs in the dictionary are followed by 'v.i' or 'v.t' or even both. Here's some examples...
like (v) v.t. I like birds.
think (v) v.i I think.
play v.t & v.i I played her. / I played.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.