This question is specifically for those who are familiar with the 2002 edition of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum.
The book has this passage at page 272:
Strictly speaking, an intransitive preposition may have a complement other than an object NP – e.g. owing in owing to the rain has a PP complement. In this section, however, we will be concerned only with intransitive prepositions that have either no complement at all or else a predicative, as in That counts [as satisfactory].
The book also says that prepositions can take finite clauses as complements as follows:
They ignored the question [of whether it was ethical]. (page 641)
Here, does the book consider the of a transitive preposition (because it takes a clause as a complement) or an intransitive preposition (because it doesn't take an object NP)?
Also, how about verbs taking ﬁnite clauses as non-object complements?
The book on pages 1017–1018:
In the present subsection we turn our attention to content clauses functioning as internal complement to a verb, as in He feared that he might lose his job ([16i]). Traditional grammar not only analyses the subordinate clause here as a noun clause, but assigns it the same function as that of the NP in He feared the prospect of unemployment, namely that of object of the verb. Again, however, we believe that the subordinate clause is not sufficiently like an NP to justify that analysis.
The feared both in He feared that he might lose his job and in He feared the prospect of unemployment, traditional grammar considers a transitive verb.
The Cambridge Grammar agrees that the one in the second example (taking an object NP as a complement) is a transitive verb. Does the book considers the one in the first example (taking a that-clause as a complement) a transitive or intransitive verb?