4 ms·

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.

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.