3 ms·

Some of this stuff is good, but golly gosh some isn't. Transitive verbs use the example, 'A director buys his lunch' to show that the action passes to the obje

Some of this stuff is good, but golly gosh some isn't. Transitive verbs use the example, 'A director buys his lunch' to show that the action passes to the object. It makes no sense. Did the lunch buy itself? The page introduces an intransitive rule to cover up all the cases in English where subject-verb-noun generates sentences where there the noun ending is not involved in the verb. The guide overloads the meaning of the English word 'mood' to carry all the intended meaning of the speaker. You are literally ordered around by a 'mood' in this style guide. More loveless, heartless, unrecognizable clone work from the AU gov.

GordonS 3y ago
At least as a Brit, the "lunch" example you provided makes perfect sense to me?
- defrost 3y ago
  They're referring to the example here: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/blog/transitive-and-intransit... 'buy' is the action, 'director' is the subject, 'lunch' is the object. <subject> <verbs> <object> is the typical transitive verb template, a transitive verb connects a subject and object (whereas other verbs don't require an object).
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    I still don't see what the issue is? Is the previous poster suggesting that transitive and intransitive verbs don't exist?
    - defrost 3y ago
      I don't see the issue the previous poster had either. I went to the source to find the context and linked it here for others, but it hasn't (for mysellf at least) shed any light on what they were objecting to.
- barrysteve 3y ago
  The wikipedia article for transitive verbs, refers to the 'direct object' as an object being acted upon. The action stays with the man performing a verb. The object is just an object. This is fine. The Aus Gov style guide states a transitive verb is when the action of the verb "passes" from the subject to the direct object. That makes no sense. The man performing the action is a 'subject' and through some unexplained nonsensical magic, the action passes into 'his lunch', when he buys it. As if the lunch could perform it's own actions, or could receive a man as a subject. In reality a bag of chips is just an inaminate object and cannot 'host' verbs. The man buying the chips is the source of the verb and retains the ownership of the verb, like wikipedia states. So did the lunch buy itself?
  - defrost 3y ago
    > The Aus Gov style guide states a transitive verb is when the action of the verb "passes" from the subject to the direct object. That makes no sense. Perhaps not to you. The verb action is from the subject to the object .. it transitions directionly as does current through a diode. > So did the lunch buy itself? No. It's odd that you'd even think that.
    - barrysteve 3y ago
      Your example makes no sense. And shows you don't understand. You can't just keep saying "it goes to" without explaining what "going to" is. The ennui this generates is palpable. You'd think programmers get this easily.
      - defrost 3y ago
        It's very clear that you're objecting to a turn of phrase that posed no issue to * a native British speaker, * a native Australian speaker, * the staff of an Australian Government body tasked with improving language usage. Perhaps it's something about yourself and your background exposure to English that's at issue here.
elliottkember 3y ago
This guide did not invent the grammatical mood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood
- barrysteve 3y ago
  Not saying they invented it. The wiki article states that they are an expression of attitude and modality. The Aus gov style guide states the mood conveys meaning. The top-down imposition of meaning via a mood, forces the intent of the speaker into the listener, simply because they have that mood. Leaving a grammatical mood as an attitude of the speaker, is much more desirable. Relating to grammatical moods as an attitude leaves open the door to possible changes in the relationship. Moods conveying meaning, does not.

GordonS 3y ago

At least as a Brit, the "lunch" example you provided makes perfect sense to me?

defrost 3y ago
They're referring to the example here: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/blog/transitive-and-intransit... 'buy' is the action, 'director' is the subject, 'lunch' is the object. <subject> <verbs> <object> is the typical transitive verb template, a transitive verb connects a subject and object (whereas other verbs don't require an object).
- cycomanic 3y ago
  I still don't see what the issue is? Is the previous poster suggesting that transitive and intransitive verbs don't exist?
  - defrost 3y ago
    I don't see the issue the previous poster had either. I went to the source to find the context and linked it here for others, but it hasn't (for mysellf at least) shed any light on what they were objecting to.
barrysteve 3y ago
The wikipedia article for transitive verbs, refers to the 'direct object' as an object being acted upon. The action stays with the man performing a verb. The object is just an object. This is fine. The Aus Gov style guide states a transitive verb is when the action of the verb "passes" from the subject to the direct object. That makes no sense. The man performing the action is a 'subject' and through some unexplained nonsensical magic, the action passes into 'his lunch', when he buys it. As if the lunch could perform it's own actions, or could receive a man as a subject. In reality a bag of chips is just an inaminate object and cannot 'host' verbs. The man buying the chips is the source of the verb and retains the ownership of the verb, like wikipedia states. So did the lunch buy itself?
- defrost 3y ago
  > The Aus Gov style guide states a transitive verb is when the action of the verb "passes" from the subject to the direct object. That makes no sense. Perhaps not to you. The verb action is from the subject to the object .. it transitions directionly as does current through a diode. > So did the lunch buy itself? No. It's odd that you'd even think that.
  - barrysteve 3y ago
    Your example makes no sense. And shows you don't understand. You can't just keep saying "it goes to" without explaining what "going to" is. The ennui this generates is palpable. You'd think programmers get this easily.
    - defrost 3y ago
      It's very clear that you're objecting to a turn of phrase that posed no issue to * a native British speaker, * a native Australian speaker, * the staff of an Australian Government body tasked with improving language usage. Perhaps it's something about yourself and your background exposure to English that's at issue here.

elliottkember 3y ago

This guide did not invent the grammatical mood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood

barrysteve 3y ago
Not saying they invented it. The wiki article states that they are an expression of attitude and modality. The Aus gov style guide states the mood conveys meaning. The top-down imposition of meaning via a mood, forces the intent of the speaker into the listener, simply because they have that mood. Leaving a grammatical mood as an attitude of the speaker, is much more desirable. Relating to grammatical moods as an attitude leaves open the door to possible changes in the relationship. Moods conveying meaning, does not.