# To walk ...transitive or intransitive?



## Artrella

Well, I'm opening a new thread because in the thread about _"pass on to sth_" there is a discussion about the transitivity of the verb *to walk*.
My opinion is that it is an *intransitive* verb, but there are examples that have been given to show that it is transitive, such as:
_To walk the green mile
To walk the dog_

Do you think that these examples are enough proof that *to walk * is transitive?


----------



## la grive solitaire

M-W thinks so  :

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=walk&x=0&y=0


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi Art, 

I think walk can be either transitive or intransitive depending on the meaning. 

Susan


----------



## Artrella

Well, this is new to me.  According to Levin, Beth (1993) "English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation" University of Chicago Press. Pp 348 >>>  Intransitive verbs (unergative verbs) they express the manner in which something is done (move, speak, etc.)
a) Manner of movement: canter, drive, fly, gallop, jump, leap,march,race,run,swim,trot,walk
b) Sound emission: bray, cackle, chirp, cry, hiss, mumble, sit, stand,sway.
c) Light emission: beam, blink,flash,shine


From Cambridge:

Definition
walk   [Show phonetics]
verb 
1 *[I or T]* to move along by putting one foot in front of the other, allowing each foot to touch the ground before lifting the next:
I walked home.
A cat was walking along the top of the fence.
He walks two kilometres to work every morning.
See also jaywalk; sleepwalk at sleepwalker.

2 *[T]* To walk someone to a particular place is to walk with them until they have reached it, usually because you are being friendly or polite, wish to protect them from danger, or to show them the way:
He offered to walk her home/to the station.

3 [T] to take an animal, especially a dog, for a walk:
She walks the dog for an hour every afternoon.

4 [T] UK INFORMAL to pass or win something, such as an examination or game, easily:
She'll walk the interview - the job is practically hers already.

5 a walking disaster/encyclopedia, etc. someone who seems to be a human form of disaster/encyclopedia, etc:
You've broken another pair of glasses? - Oh, you're a walking disaster!


Well, I must admit that I was wrong, and that this discussion was really useful to me, because I've just LEARNT that "to walk" could perfectly be TRANSITIVE... I must thank Panjandrum and John for their examples. But... there is something that I don't quite understand... I don't know this verb being a verb of movement, I just can believe it is transitive.  But if the dictionaries say so, well...Art...


----------



## timpeac

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Hi Art,
> 
> I think walk can be either transitive or intransitive depending on the meaning.
> 
> Susan


 
Completely. There are innumerable examples of this. 

-To fly. "I'm flying to Japan tomorrow". "I'm flying a cesna tomorrow".
-To finish. "The election finishes tomorrow". "I'll finish him if he kisses my wife again!"
-To be. "I think therefore I am". "I am a happy person normally".

In fact so many, that I'm starting to think that virtually any English verb can be both transitive or intransitive.


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> Completely. There are innumerable examples of this.
> 
> -To fly. "I'm flying to Japan tomorrow". "I'm flying a cesna tomorrow".
> -To finish. "The election finishes tomorrow". "I'll finish him if he kisses my wife again!"
> -To be. "I think therefore I am". "I am a happy person normally".
> 
> In fact so many, that I'm starting to think that virtually any English verb can be both transitive or intransitive.




Well, Tim, my Grammar Teacher has taught us that in the sentence "The sun rises at 6 o'clock"; the verb "rise" of course "intransitive" it's not a real intransitive because down in the tree it has an object.  _Someone raises the sun..._, but this is a theory... and it is worth to think about it and find different opinions connected with "unergative verbs"...


----------



## panjandrum

*Artrella:*  "...they express the manner in which something is done (move, speak, etc.)"  I think this is suggesting the kind of verbs that are, typically, intransitive, not a definition.

*timpeac:* "I am a happy person normally".  *I am* is not transitive.  *a happy person* is not the object of the sentence.  Stated dogmatically, but with some anxiety because I can't recall what it *IS*


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> *Artrella:* "...they express the manner in which something is done (move, speak, etc.)" I think this is suggesting the kind of verbs that are, typically, intransitive, not a definition.
> 
> *timpeac:* "I am a happy person normally". *I am* is not transitive. *a happy person* is not the object of the sentence. Stated dogmatically, but with some anxiety because I can't recall what it *IS*


 
Hehe, I put that in deliberately to see what people would say  .

Yes, "to be" supposedly can't take an object (I can't remember what this sort of verb is called either) according to traditional grammar rules (as always based on Latin where nominative cases were used rather than accusative ones).

Personally I think that is hogwash - at least in terms of English. "I am a happy person" "I hit a happy person" - no difference to my mind. It is because of this "rule" that people claim you should say "it is I" etc, and all native English speakers know how little anyone does that in reality.


----------



## Outsider

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Stated dogmatically, but with some anxiety because I can't recall what it *IS*


"To be" is a copula. Copulas behave in a special way in many languages; that's why they're not considered transitive verbs. See here.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> It is because of this "rule" that people claim you should say "it is I" etc, and all native English speakers know how little anyone does that in reality.


But you used to do it quite often, in ancient English. It isn't just something that someone made up.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> "To be" is a copula. Copulas behave in a special way in many languages; that's why they're not considered transitive verbs. See here.
> 
> But you used to do it quite often, in ancient English. It isn't just something that someone made up.


 
Ah yes, that's the one. Thanks Outsider.


----------



## panjandrum

Arggh. You're all too quick 

Consulting the Oxford English Grammar, I found that "to be" is indeed a copular verb - one that is neither transitive nor intransitive. In "I am a happy boy", a happy boy is the subject predicative 
If the copular verb is be, and the subject predicative identifies the subject, the subject and the subject predicative can change places.  So next time the music stops, the sentence is "A happy boy am I".


----------



## Artrella

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Arggh. You're all too quick
> 
> Consulting the Oxford English Grammar, I found that "to be" is indeed a copular verb - one that is neither transitive nor intransitive. In "I am a happy boy", a happy boy is the subject predicative
> If the copular verb is be, and the subject predicative identifies the subject, the subject and the subject predicative can change places.  So next time the music stops, the sentence is "A happy boy am I".





This is called "linking verbs" and you can do away with them and the sentence remains perfectly meaningful.
Eg.

I am fat
I fat >> you understand that

Going back to the "walk" verb, I think I must have been confused with the Spanish "caminar".  In English you can say "I walk" and "I walk the dog" , the latter is impossible in Spanish.  You can say "Llevo al perro a pasear/caminar" but it is ungrammatical to say "Yo camino al perro".


----------



## panjandrum

Walk is NOT transitive.
There is an unstated additional word or phrase in each example quoted.
Illustration as follows:


----------



## Artrella

Again... I'm not completely convinced that the verb "to walk" means the same in these sentences "I walk "   and "I walk the dog"... semantically, the action done in one sentence is not the same as in the other sentence.
Same happens with "to fly"

"The bird flies" 
"I fly a plane"

Although the "name of the verb" is the same one, I think in the deep structure we are talking about two different actions.

But I cannot argue with the dictionaries.  So I have to abide by what they say.


----------



## Artrella

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Walk is NOT transitive.
> There is an unstated additional word or phrase in each example quoted.
> Illustration as follows:





What is the example Panjandrum?


----------



## panjandrum

Artrella said:
			
		

> What is the example Panjandrum?


Sorry, Artrella, I was in such a rush to post the statement that I posted before digging out the examples - it's a hot sunny afternoon here 


_To walk *along* the green mile_
_To walk *with* the dog_

He offered to walk *with* her home/to the station

Now we need someone to say what the proper term for "the green mile" etc is. 

"I'm flying a cesna tomorrow" was a bit of a poser, but then in this example *fly* is not equivalent to what a bird does, it is equivalent to what a busdriver does (apologies to all airline pilots). "Can you fly?" has two meanings.

"But I cannot argue with the dictionaries. So I have to abide by what they say."  Ah well, someone had to write the dictionaries.  Maybe they got it wrong 
After all, _they_ didn't have the benefits of all this international consultation


----------



## timpeac

Pan/Atrella - how about "he walked the marionette across the stage" (eg by strings). This would be transitive and the same action as "I walked across the stage".


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> Pan/Atrella - how about "he walked the marionette across the stage" (eg by strings). This would be transitive and the same action as "I walked across the stage".




Well, nominally you can say that it is transitive because you have a direct object after the verb, but what you are saying is that someone causes the  marionette to walk across the stage, it is not the same as if you say _"The marionette walked across the stage"_or "I walked across the stage".  What I think is that in English you have the same "name" for two different actions>>  1) to move yourself in a particular direction  2) to *cause* something to move in a particular direction


----------



## Artrella

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Sorry, Artrella, I was in such a rush to post the statement that I posted before digging out the examples - it's a hot sunny afternoon here
> 
> 
> _To walk *along* the green mile_
> _To walk *with* the dog_
> 
> He offered to walk *with* her home/to the station
> 
> Now we need someone to say what the proper term for "the green mile" etc is.
> 
> "I'm flying a cesna tomorrow" was a bit of a poser, but then in this example *fly* is not equivalent to what a bird does, it is equivalent to what a busdriver does (apologies to all airline pilots). "Can you fly?" has two meanings.
> 
> "But I cannot argue with the dictionaries. So I have to abide by what they say."  Ah well, someone had to write the dictionaries.  Maybe they got it wrong
> After all, _they_ didn't have the benefits of all this international consultation




I totally agree with you Panjandrum, and yes we have to "obey" the dictionaries.  Your examples (your paraphrasing of the examples previously given) show the "intransitivity" of the verb.  In my opinion, "to walk the dog" is not the same action as "The dog walks".  It is not the same "walk" we are talking about.


----------



## panjandrum

Apologies to all.
It occurred to me, prompted by Artrella, to actually USE my dictionary (despite previous comments).  AND there it is, in plain print, in the OED:
Walk I, intransitive - as we all recognised;
Walk II, transitive - examples include "walk the deck", "walk the streets";
Walk III, Causative uses - examples include "To lead, drive or ride a horse, to conduct on a walk.
I haven't come across "causative uses" in this context, so that calls for a little more research.  The "walked the marionette across the stage" example would be "causative".
But if the OED says "walk" may be transitive, I'm not going to argue.


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, nominally you can say that it is transitive because you have a direct object after the verb, but what you are saying is that someone causes the marionette to walk across the stage, it is not the same as if you say _"The marionette walked across the stage"_or "I walked across the stage". What I think is that in English you have the same "name" for two different actions>> 1) to move yourself in a particular direction 2) to *cause* something to move in a particular direction


 
But that's almost the classic definition of a transitive verb. Compare with "I flew to Paris" and "I flew the Cessna to Paris", that would be a classic transitive/intransitive pair using the same verb. Yet the second could be rewritten as "I caused the Cessna to fly to Paris" couldn't it.

I think the marionette example is sufficient to show that "to walk" can be fully transitive (In a way that, I agree, to walk the dog is not).


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> But that's almost the classic definition of a transitive verb. Compare with "I flew to Paris" and "I flew the Cessna to Paris", that would be a classic transitive/intransitive pair using the same verb. Yet the second could be rewritten as "I caused the Cessna to fly to Paris" couldn't it.
> 
> I think the marionette example is sufficient to show that "to walk" can be fully transitive (In a way that, I agree, to walk the dog is not).




Well, if we consider the "causative" aspect of the verbs we can say that all the verbs are transitive.  "The glass broke"... is that intransitive?  What do you think?


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Apologies to all.
> It occurred to me, prompted by Artrella, to actually USE my dictionary (despite previous comments). AND there it is, in plain print, in the OED:
> Walk I, intransitive - as we all recognised;
> Walk II, transitive - examples include "walk the deck", "walk the streets";
> Walk III, Causative uses - examples include "To lead, drive or ride a horse, to conduct on a walk.
> I haven't come across "causative uses" in this context, so that calls for a little more research. The "walked the marionette across the stage" example would be "causative".
> But if the OED says "walk" may be transitive, I'm not going to argue.


 
Hehe, never one to shirk a challenge, I am going to argue with the esteemed OED. I don't think that "to walk the streets" is an example of a transitive usage. Here "the streets", although a noun, is acting as an adverbial phrase. It is synonymous with "along the streets" as in "to walk along the streets" where you have intransitive "walk" being described by an adverbial phrase.

The streets are not "walked" they are "walked upon". I think the OED as confused the familiar pattern of subject verb object where both are nouns and usually the verb transitive - eg I see the boy - with "I walk the streets" which has the same apparent form but the elements are not serving the same function.


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, if we consider the "causative" aspect of the verbs we can say that all the verbs are transitive. "The glass broke"... is that intransitive? What do you think?


 
Yes absolutely, and exactly what I said in my earlier post.


			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> In fact so many, that I'm starting to think that virtually any English verb can be both transitive or intransitive.


----------



## Outsider

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, if we consider the "causative" aspect of the verbs we can say that all the verbs are transitive.  "The glass broke"... is that intransitive?  What do you think?


Earlier conversation about unaccusative verbs.


----------



## Benjy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Hehe, never one to shirk a challenge, I am going to argue with the esteemed OED.


haha excellent tim  that made me smile  



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't think that "to walk the streets" is an example of a transitive usage. Here "the streets", although a noun, is acting as an adverbial phrase. It is synonymous with "along the streets" as in "to walk along the streets" where you have intransitive "walk" being described by an adverbial phrase.
> 
> The streets are not "walked" they are "walked upon". I think the OED as confused the familiar pattern of subject verb object where both are nouns and usually the verb transitive - eg I see the boy - with "I walk the streets" which has the same apparent form but the elements are not serving the same function.



i am going to disagree. the streets are the object of the verb. the streets are being walked on, true, but there are lots of verbs which you can do this with. unfortunately i can only think of examples in french haha. i smashed the door/i smashed into the door. both could be regarded as synonymous expressions just one has a preposition and the other doesnt. same as walking the streets and walking along the streets on the streets etc. the existence of the other possiblities of construction doesnt mean that the streets isnt the object of walking 

in my opinon of course


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> haha excellent tim  that made me smile
> 
> 
> 
> i am going to disagree. the streets are the object of the verb. the streets are being walked on, true, but there are lots of verbs which you can do this with. unfortunately i can only think of examples in french haha. i smashed the door/i smashed into the door. both could be regarded as synonymous expressions just one has a preposition and the other doesnt. same as walking the streets and walking along the streets on the streets etc. the existence of the other possiblities of construction doesnt mean that the streets isnt the object of walking
> 
> in my opinon of course


 
Well you're in good company, since the OED agrees with you . I still think it is the form of the sentence which is clouding the actual meaning of the words. 

To change the example only slightly to "to jump along the road" here you don't have the option of saying "to jump the road" (or if you did it would mean from one side of the road to the other I suppose). In a similar way that the road can't be jumped (meaning along it) it seems to me that it is no more "walked". It doesn't really seem to make much sense to say "here is a walked road", and so I think the "to walk the road" = "to walk along the road" = intransitive verb plus adverbial phrase.

Actually a clearer example occurs to me. You can say "to drive the streets" meaning "to drive around the streets" in a similar usage to the walk. It seems quite clear to me that there is no such thing as a "driven road" just roads that have been driven along, and so "to drive the streets" is again an intransitive verb plus an adverbial phrase which just happens to be a noun.

With your smashed door example, I think this doesn't work because in fact "to smash something" and "to smash into something" are very different verbs. In the first the door is in pieces, right?, in the second it probably isn't (although you are probably hurt). They are different verbs. "to walk the street" and "to walk along the street" are very nearly synonymous if not completely synonymous.

Noun verb noun doesn't necessarily indicate subject verb object (although of course it usually does). In "I waited an hour" the hour is not "a waited hour" it is just an adverbial phrase of time describing the intransitive "I waited".


----------



## Benjy

good answer. for the door smashing thing yes.. i am really stretching it but its only because my limited vocabulary is preventing my from finding another verb to demonstrate what i want to say (illegal french commentary: taper/taper sur). anyhows, i certainly dont know enough grammar to explain properly what i mean so i shall bow out of the discussion and leave it to the people who use the big words


----------



## mjscott

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Consulting the Oxford English Grammar, I found that "to be" is indeed a copular verb - one that is neither transitive nor intransitive. In "I am a happy boy", a happy boy is the *subject predicative*
> 
> For my information:
> 
> When did they start calling it a _subject predicative_ and when did they quit calling it a _predicate nominative?_
> 
> (I'm pretty sure they're the same thing....)


----------



## Artrella

Unfortunately, I was taught Grammar from the traditional point of view, while other courses had the good fortune of seeing grammar from the generative perspective.  However I could read some material by people related to Chomsky, and the D -Structure, and they had this theory of all the verbs being transitive, such as "The glass broke".  I cannot explain it because I don't know it very well. 

I've read the example "I waited for an hour".  What about "This book costs $ 4"... Is "cost" transitive? What would *$4* be?  I think that we can talk about transitivity when certain alternations can be done without changing the meaning of the sentence.


----------



## panjandrum

mjscott said:
			
		

> panjandrum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For my information:
> 
> When did they start calling it a _subject predicative_ and when did they quit calling it a _predicate nominative?_
> 
> (I'm pretty sure they're the same thing....)
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have no idea - but they certainly look like the same thing said differently.
> 
> Back to walking. Having been converted from total belief in the impossibility of walk being transitive, I am now a fervent transitivist. There is a very clear difference between "I walked the streets" and "I walked along the streets" or "I walked on the streets" - is there not?
> Similarly, there is difference between "I drove the streets" and "I drove on the streets".
> 
> And just to be clear, in "I walked the dog", walked is a causative verb - because what I did was cause the dog to walk.
> "I burped the baby" - I caused the baby to burp
> 
> Walk has three distinct usages: intransitive, transitive and causative.
> Not a lot of people know that - and this morning, I was one of those people.
Click to expand...


----------



## Artrella

panjandrum said:
			
		

> mjscott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very clear difference between "I walked the streets" and "I walked along the streets" or "I walked on the streets" - is there not?
> Similarly, there is difference between "I drove the streets" and "I drove on the streets".
> 
> Walk has three distinct usages: intransitive, transitive and causative.
> Not a lot of people know that - and this morning, I was one of those people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, me too!! But yet I'm not convinced of this "transitive" thing about "walk"..
> 
> What is the difference you find in those examples above mentioned?
Click to expand...


----------



## mjscott

I'm still not sure that flying the cessna to Paris is intransitive. To me, the plane is the direct object of the verb to fly--which in this case is transitive. What did I fly? (Not a parasail, not a helicopter--I flew a plane--got in and started up the motor, etc.). Did I get that clearly? Once you "go advanced" on links--you cannot see the original post, so I may be misquoting timpeac.


----------



## timpeac

mjscott said:
			
		

> I'm still not sure that flying the cessna to Paris is intransitive. To me, the plane is the direct object of the verb to fly--which in this case is transitive. What did I fly? (Not a parasail, not a helicopter--I flew a plane--got in and started up the motor, etc.). Did I get that clearly? Once you "go advanced" on links--you cannot see the original post, so I may be misquoting timpeac.


 
Yes, I think you are - I was saying that "I flew the cessna to Paris" is transitive as opposed to "I flew to Paris" which is intransitive.


----------



## Artrella

mjscott said:
			
		

> I'm still not sure that flying the cessna to Paris is intransitive. To me, the plane is the direct object of the verb to fly--which in this case is transitive. What did I fly? (Not a parasail, not a helicopter--I flew a plane--got in and started up the motor, etc.). Did I get that clearly? Once you "go advanced" on links--you cannot see the original post, so I may be misquoting timpeac.




Well, in fact I didn't *fly* the cessna, I "drove" it, I caused it to be *flying*.  But again, I'm thinking in Spanish and in the causative thing, if you take it nominally, well you are right and the rest is too.

Bye *mj*  !!


----------



## Outsider

"To fly" can also mean to "drive" a flying craft.



> *fly* _intransitive verb_ [...]
> 
> 5 : to operate or travel in an airplane or spacecraft
> 
> _transitive verb_
> 
> 1 a : to cause to fly, float, or hang in the air <flying a kite> b : to operate (as a balloon, aircraft, rocket, or spacecraft) in flight c : to journey over or through by flying
> 
> Merriam Webster Online


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> "To fly" can also mean to "drive" a flying craft.




My mouth is shut right now!!!   Thanks Outsider!! It seems today I'm learning a lot of things!!!     I think the confusion lies in the fact that they use the same word with two different meanings.


----------



## Outsider

Most words have more than one meaning...


----------



## panjandrum

*Fly:*
In the same way that walk may be intransitive, transitive and causative -
I can fly. I
I can fly the Atlantic. T
I can fly the Concorde (I'm more ambitious). C

*Artrella:*
"I walked the streets" suggests that I was walking for some considerable time on one occasion, or I walked on many occasions - possibly in some deep inner turmoil, possibly searching for something, possibly homeless.
"I walked along the streets" or "I walked on the streets" does not, for me, carry that additional meaning.
Similarly for driving, I think.

PS  If it's not inappropriate, I would like to thank all of you for a really fascinating and educational discussion. Yiz are all great


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> *Fly:*
> In the same way that walk may be intransitive, transitive and causative -
> I can fly. I
> I can fly the Atlantic. T
> I can fly the Concorde (I'm more ambitious). C
> 
> *Artrella:*
> "I walked the streets" suggests that I was walking for some considerable time on one occasion, or I walked on many occasions - possibly in some deep inner turmoil, possibly searching for something, possibly homeless.
> "I walked along the streets" or "I walked on the streets" does not, for me, carry that additional meaning.
> Similarly for driving, I think.
> 
> PS If it's not inappropriate, I would like to thank all of you for a really fascinating and educational discussion. Yiz are all great


 
As per my discussion with Benjy above, I would dispute that "I can fly the atlantic" is a transitive use. To my mind it is an intransitive use of "I can fly" plus an adverbial phrase of space, in the form of a noun, of "the atlantic". I seems the same as an adverbial phrase of time eg "I flew two hours straight". The two hours are not flown.

I think that the fact this is not a transitive usage in "I can fly the atlantic" can be clearly seen by the fact that you cannot turn it around and say "the atlantic can be flown by pilots". Planes can be flown by pilots. The atlantic can be flown over.


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> "I can fly the atlantic"To my mind it is an intransitive use of "I can fly" plus an adverbial phrase of space, in the form of a noun, of "the atlantic". I seems the same as an adverbial phrase of time eg "I flew two hours straight". The two hours are not flown.
> 
> I think that the fact this is not a transitive usage in "I can fly the atlantic" can be clearly seen by the fact that you cannot turn it around and say "the atlantic can be flown by pilots". Planes can be flown by pilots. The atlantic can be flown over.




Completely agree with Timpeac!


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Most words have more than one meaning...



Again, you are right... but I was talking about this particular case where a "name" of a verb means two different actions, in opposition to Spanish for example....


----------



## joseluisgarletti

There are some verbal phrases which may consider transitive or intransitive verbs depending on the context, Some grammarians refer to them as "Ambitransitive verbs."

Examples with "fly":

a-He flew over the Pacific: Transitive     < Spanish removed. Cagey, moderator >
b-He can fly: Intransitive verb  < --- >

Examples with "walk":

a-He walks five miles every day:< --- >

b-He walks the same road every day: Transitive.  < --- >

c-He walks to school every day: Intransitive < --- >


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

joseluisgarletti said:


> There are some verbal phrases which may consider transitive or intransitive verbs depending on the context, Some grammarians refer to them as "Ambitransitive verbs."
> 
> Examples with "fly":
> 
> a-He flew over the Pacific: Transitive   < --- >


I'm sorry, but this is an intransitive use of the verb.  For a transitive use, you need an object, as in "he flew his kite in the park", or "the pilot flew the airplane."





> a-He walks five miles every day: Transitive< --- >
> 
> c-He walks to school every day: Intransitive < --- >


I would disagree with calling these transitive; I would consider "five miles every day" to be an adverbial phrase, rather than a true object, while "to school" is a prepositional phrase and not an object of the verb.

< Comment no longer needed.  Cagey, moderator >


----------



## joseluisgarletti

OK you are right GreenWhite.

He walked ten miles.
He ran ten miles...

Both cases are the same!

We shall ask: How long did he walk/run?  Intransitive verb
NOT: What did he walk/run?

So "walk" isn't, wasn't and will never be a transitive verb.

Kind regards.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

joseluisgarletti said:


> So "walk" isn't, wasn't and will never be a transitive verb.


Not so.

Consider these, which are both transitive uses of "walk" as a verb.
_John walked his dog around the block.
You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?_


----------



## joseluisgarletti

Well GreenWhiteBlue.

Yes, you are right. But in the first example you supplied, "walk" is a transitive verb indeed, but as transitive, "walk" has a different semantic meaning from the one I put forward, which indeed is intransitive.

As far as the second example is concerned, I don't know how to translate it into Spanish. I heard it from Madonna for the first time in the concert held in Buenos Aires a couple of years ago.

Warmly,
JL


----------



## Keith Bradford

joseluisgarletti said:


> ...
> 
> So "walk" isn't, wasn't and will never be a transitive verb...



"Well," my wife has just said, walking her fingers up my spine, "Are you going to answer Joseluisgarletti's mistaken post or are you going to walk the dog first?"

Of course "walk" has a different semantic meaning when it changes from transitive to intransitive.  By definition.  And we do say "*What *was he walking... the chihuahua or the borzoi?"


----------



## joseluisgarletti

A transitive verb is that which accepts a Direct object. So, "walk" perfectly acts as a transitive one in the example "I walked my dog along the beach for two hours." (my dog: DO... What did I walk along the beach? the dog... I walked it along the beach for two hours." The DO can be replaced by the personal pronoun IT.

Whereas in the example "I walked two kilometres..." the verb "to walk" acts as an intransitive one. (I walked it... no grammatical sense). "two kilometres", in the example stated is an Adverbial Adjunct.

Regards.


----------

