4 ms·
As a German speaker, this title seems very Denglish-ey to me. Is this phrasing valid in English? It seems like the object of 'to make' is necessary and missing,
by matt-snider 8y ago
As a German speaker, this title seems very Denglish-ey to me. Is this phrasing valid in English? It seems like the object of 'to make' is necessary and missing, whereas in German it is perfectly normal and correct to phrase things this way (e.g. Tofu macht satt, or Schnaps macht betrunken, whereas in English you'd say: tofu makes you full/is filling, or shnaps makes/gets you drunk).
Not trying to nitpick, just curious if this is actually correct grammar or not.
- jackpirate 8y agoAs a native English speaker, you're correct.
- stephenhuey 8y agoI’m also a native speaker, and I find this construction recognizable from some literature. Just searched for examples of whether a grammar teacher would allow transitive verbs without direct objects, and I found one of the answers here suggesting it’s ok in English because the object can be inferred from context: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/43482/a-transitive-verb-without-a-direct-object https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/43482/a-transitive-v...