# verbos transitivos e intransitivos



## Karlaina

Este concepto me está dando algunos problemas.  

Creo que entiendo lo básico de aquel concepto: los intransitivos carecen de CD, mientras que los transitivos requieren el uso del CD.  (¿Es cierto?) Algunos verbos se pueden usar de ambas maneras, ¿verdad?  

Pero........... ¿cómo clasificamos los verbos como _gustar_ que carecen de CD, pero requieren el uso del CI?

Gracias por su ayuda.


----------



## Outsider

Son intransitivos (con complemento indirecto).


----------



## Karlaina

Oh, OK.  Muy bien.  Así que, si cual quier verbo carece de CD, aun si exige el uso del CI, necesariamente lo consideramos verbo intransitivo.  ¿Correcto?

Muchas gracias.


----------



## Magmod

Karlaina said:


> ¿cómo clasificamos los verbos como _gustar_ que carecen de CD, pero requieren el uso del CI?


 
Exactamente como en inglés:

Me gustó la película, dónde la película es el sujeto y me (a mí) el objeto indirecto.
Me gusta la pelicula. Literally: The movie is pleasing to me.
Me parece aburrida la película. Literally: Boring seems the movie to me.
Saludos


----------



## Dudu678

La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo que pasa a ser sujeto en la voz pasiva.


----------



## Magmod

Dudu678 said:


> La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo que pasa a ser sujeto en la voz pasiva.



¿Dónde están tus ejemplos Dudu?


----------



## Pitt

Un verbo intransitivo no tiene un complemento directo, pero puede tener un complemento indirecto (C.I.). Un ejemplo con el verbo intransitivo *gustar*: La película [Sujeto] me [C.I.] gusta.

Un saludo,
Pitt


----------



## Jeromed

Magmod said:


> Exactamente como en inglés:
> 
> Me gustó la película, dónde la película es el sujeto y me (a mí) el objeto indirecto.
> Me gusta la pelicula. Literally: The movie is pleasing to me.
> Me parece aburrida la película. Literally: Boring seems the movie to me.
> Saludos


 

Nooooo. In English you can't have a IO, if there's no DO.
The movie pleases me ---  _me_ is the DO
The movie is pleasing to me --- _me_ is the object of the preposition _to_


----------



## Magmod

Jeromed said:


> Nooooo. In English you can't have a IO, if there's no DO.
> The movie pleases me --- _me_ is the DO
> The movie is pleasing to me --- _me_ is the object of the preposition _to *= Indirect object*  _


An intransitive verb has a subject but does not have an object
She speaks
It pleases
I smile

For example:

Her secret admirer gave her *a valentine card*. 
This sentence contains an *indirect object*. An indirect object is, in a sense, the recipient of the direct object.
To determine if a verb has an indirect object, isolate the verb and ask _to whom?_ _to what?_, _for whom?_, or _for what?_ after it. The answer is the indirect object.

Q: To whom did the movie please?
Answer: to me


----------



## Jeromed

> Magmod:
> Q: To whom did the movie please?
> Answer: to me


 
The verb in your sentence _"the movie is pleasing to me"_ is *is*. _*Pleasing*_ is a present participle/ adjective. It is not part of the verb (i.e. it's not the same as, say, *is running*).

*To be* is a linking or copulative verb. These verbs have neither DO's or IO's, and they are neither transitive nor intransitive. They have either a *predicate nominative* (a noun word or phrase that renames the subject of the sentence) or a *predicate adjective* (an adjectival word or phrase that describes/modifies the subject of the sentence).

In this case, *pleasing to me* is the predicate adjective. _*To me*_ is a prepositional phrase that completes the meaning of *pleasing*. _*Me*_ is the object of the preposition _*to*_.
-------------------------------------------------------

From englishplus.com:

<<An *indirect object* precedes the direct object and tells *to whom* or *for whom* the action of the verb is done and who is receiving the direct object. There must be a direct object to have an indirect object. Indirect objects are usually found with verbs of giving or communicating like _give, bring, tell, show, take,_ or _offer_. An indirect object is always a noun or pronoun which is not part of a prepositional phrase>>


----------



## lazarus1907

Karlaina said:


> Este concepto me está dando algunos problemas.
> 
> Creo que entiendo lo básico de aquel concepto: los intransitivos carecen de CD, mientras que los transitivos requieren el uso del CD. (¿Es cierto?) Algunos verbos se pueden usar de ambas maneras, ¿verdad?
> 
> Pero........... ¿cómo clasificamos los verbos como _gustar_ que carecen de CD, pero requieren el uso del CI?
> 
> Gracias por su ayuda.


Un verbo transitivo se construye normalmente con complemento directo, y es intransitivo en caso contrario. Sin embargo, un verbo típicamente transitivo puede usarse como intransitivo si se prescinde del complemento directo. Ej. "Estoy pensando" (pensar es transitivo).


Dudu678 said:


> La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo que pasa a ser sujeto en la voz pasiva.


Perdona, pero no estoy de acuerdo. La definición de verbo transitivo es que se construye con complemento directo, ya que algunos verbos transitivos no pueden pasarse a pasiva.


----------



## Karlaina

Gracias a todos.  

Como no tenemos en inglés intransitivos que requieren el uso de los CIs, no sabía si verbos como _gustar_, _faltar_, _importar_, etc se clasificaron de otra manera.  

Gracias por su ayuda.


----------



## Jeromed

lazarus1907 said:


> Sin embargo, un verbo típicamente transitivo puede usarse como intransitivo si se prescinde del complemento directo. Ej. "Estoy pensando" (pensar es transitivo).


 
¿Es esto lo que se denomina 'verbo absoluto'? (un verbo que por naturaleza es transitivo, pero que aparece sin complemento directo en una oración).


----------



## Pitt

lazarus1907 said:


> La definición de verbo transitivo es que se construye con complemento directo, ya que algunos verbos transitivos no pueden pasarse a pasiva.


 
Por ejemplo *tener *es un verbo transitivo, pero no es posible la pasiva:

Tengo un coche [C.D.] > no se dice: *Un coche es tenido por mí.

Pitt


----------



## San

Karlaina said:


> Gracias a todos.
> 
> Como no tenemos en inglés intransitivos que requieren el uso de los CIs, no sabía si verbos como _gustar_, _faltar_, _importar_, etc se clasificaron de otra manera.
> 
> Gracias por su ayuda.



El verbo gustar no requiere un CI. Lo mismo pasa con faltar e importar. Si quieres aquí tienes algunos ejemplos de gustar sin complemento indirecto:

_Como usted guste.
Su actitud no gustó nada.
Gusta de salir a pasear por las tardes.

_Otros foreros con más conocimientos de gramática quizás te puedan orientar sobre el concepto de verbos que requieren un CI,  a mí me suena un poco raro.

 Saludos.


----------



## Outsider

Creo que lo que Karlaina quería decir era que el verbo gustar se puede usar con CI y sin CD.


----------



## Jeromed

El verbo _gustar_ puede ser transitivo o intransitivo, con construcciones y significados distintos. Como intransitivo exige CI sólo en la acepción *1.a)* del DPD:

*<<gustar*. *1.* Cuando significa ‘causar, o sentir, placer o atracción’ es intransitivo y puede construirse de dos formas:
*a) *El sujeto es la causa del placer o la atracción, y la persona que lo siente se expresa mediante un complemento indirecto: _«Vos me gustás mucho»_ (Rovner _Pareja_ [Arg. 1976]); _«Le gustaban la buena música y los buenos libros»_ (Palou _Carne_ [Esp. 1975]). Esta es la construcción normal en el habla corriente.
*b) *La persona que siente el placer es el sujeto y aquello que lo causa se expresa mediante un complemento introducido por _de: «Gustaba de reunirse con amigos en su casa»_ (UPietri _Oficio_ [Ven. 1976]). Es construcción documentada sobre todo en la lengua escrita. Debe evitarse la omisión de la preposición _de,_ frecuente cuando el complemento regido es un infinitivo: _Barcelona y Tenerife, dos conjuntos que gustan jugar al ataque»_ (_Vanguardia_ [Esp.] 22.3.94).
*2.* Como transitivo significa ‘querer o desear’ y su empleo es escaso fuera de fórmulas de cortesía: _«¿Gusta usted una cerveza?»_ (Victoria _Casta_ [Méx. 1995]); _«_—_¿Le molesto si escucho las noticias? _—_Haga como guste» _(Plaza _Cerrazón_ [Ur. 1980]).>>


----------



## Jeromed

Karlaina said:


> Gracias a todos.
> 
> Como no tenemos en inglés intransitivos que requieren el uso de los CIs, no sabía si verbos como _gustar_, _faltar_, _importar_, etc se clasificaron de otra manera.
> 
> Gracias por su ayuda.


 
En inglés:
- los verbos transitivos llevan CD, y a veces CI
- los verbos intransitivos no llevan ni CD ni CI.

En español:
-los verbos transitivos llevan CD
-los verbos intransitivos pueden llevar CI, pero no siempre lo hacen.


----------



## San

Jeromed said:


> El verbo _gustar_ puede ser transitivo o intransitivo, con construcciones y significados distintos. Como intransitivo exige CI sólo en la acepción *1.a)* del DPD:
> 
> *<<gustar*. *1.* Cuando significa ‘causar, o sentir, placer o atracción’ es intransitivo y puede construirse de dos formas:
> *a) *El sujeto es la causa del placer o la atracción, y la persona que lo siente se expresa mediante un complemento indirecto: _«Vos me gustás mucho»_ (Rovner _Pareja_ [Arg. 1976]); _«Le gustaban la buena música y los buenos libros»_ (Palou _Carne_ [Esp. 1975]). Esta es la construcción normal en el habla corriente.



Pero nada impide omitir el CI, ¿no?. Por ejemplo:

_El cricket no gusta mucho aquí en España._


----------



## Jeromed

San said:


> Pero nada impide omitir el CI, ¿no?. Por ejemplo:
> 
> _El cricket no gusta mucho aquí en España._


 
Creo que, en tu ejemplo, el CI se ha elidido:

_El cricket no gusta mucho [a la gente] aquí en España._

A ver qué dicen los demás.


----------



## Outsider

San said:


> Pero nada impide omitir el CI, ¿no?. Por ejemplo:
> 
> _El cricket no gusta mucho aquí en España._


Su ejemplo me parece incorrecto. "Cricket doesn't like much here in Spain"...?


----------



## Jeromed

Outsider said:


> Su ejemplo me parece incorrecto. "Cricket doesn't like much here in Spain"...?


 
Sin embargo, es castellano correcto. O, por lo menos, así lo veo yo.


----------



## Outsider

Podría ser un uso inacusativo de "gustar" que no conozco. Me gustaría oír de los hispanohablantes...


----------



## San

Outsider said:


> Podría ser un uso inacusativo de "gustar" que no conozco. Me gustaría oír de los hispanohablantes...



Mira esta búsqueda:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="no+ha+gustado+mucho+en"&btnG=Search&meta=

Es como si se usara un complemento de lugar en uno indirecto, pero en realidad en = a la gente de.


----------



## Outsider

Gracias. ¡Qué curioso!


----------



## Dudu678

La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo que en la forma pasiva, si la hay, pasa a ser sujeto.


----------



## lazarus1907

Dudu678 said:


> La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo que en la forma pasiva, si la hay, pasa a ser sujeto.


Y si no la hay, ¿cómo usamos la definición para saber si un verbo es transitivo o no? Es decir: vemos un verbo en una frase, y no puede pasarse a pasiva. ¿Es transitivo, o no?


----------



## lazarus1907

Jeromed said:


> Creo que, en tu ejemplo, el CI se ha elidido:
> 
> _El cricket no gusta mucho [a la gente] aquí en España._
> 
> A ver qué dicen los demás.


Esta frase es correcta, aun sin "a la gente".


----------



## Dudu678

lazarus1907 said:


> Y si no la hay, ¿cómo usamos la definición para saber si un verbo es transitivo o no? Es decir: vemos un verbo en una frase, y no puede pasarse a pasiva. ¿Es transitivo, o no?


Si no puede pasarse a pasiva nos quedamos en la primera parte.

_La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo (cut).

_Lo otro es la explicación de qué puede pasar con ese complemento directo. Nada, que no me pillas dos veces.


----------



## Karlaina

Outsider said:


> Su ejemplo me parece incorrecto. "Cricket doesn't like much here in Spain"...?


 
El ejemplo sí es correcto; es la traducción que te está dando problemas.  Ten quidado usando el verbo "to like" para traducir el verbo "gustar." 

"Gustar" = to be pleasing [to]; to be liked [by]

Entonces, la traducción sería: _Cricket isn't liked much [by the people] here in Spain._

iEsto a mí siempre me da problemas, también! 

Pues, a todos los que respondieron. Me quedo mareada pero informada. Me interesó eso del concepto del "verbo absoluto," pero no encuetro dónde hallar más información. ¿Alguna idea? 

Mil gracias a todos.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From englishplus.com:
> 
> <<An *indirect object* precedes the direct object and tells *to whom* or *for whom* the action of the verb is done and who is receiving the direct object. There must be a direct object to have an indirect object. Indirect objects are usually found with verbs of giving or communicating like _give, bring, tell, show, take,_ or _offer_. An indirect object is always a noun or pronoun which is not part of a prepositional phrase>>



Englishplus's underlined statement there is an oversimplification. There is no direct object in -"I told her" -- and yet 'her' is still clearly the IO. Yes, I know that the 'implied' DO is 'it' - "I told it to her" or "I told her it". But their definition is incomplete and therefore misleading. -- I do disagree with Magmod's original statement that "it's just like English" with regard to the 'is pleasing' sentence. That sentence doesn't have a transitive nor intransitive verb, but rather a copulative verb which doesn't take a DO or an IO. "Gustar", when meaning 'agradar', is intransitive in Spanish and takes a CI.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

lazarus1907 said:


> "_El cricket no gusta mucho [a la gente] aquí en España._"Esta frase es correcta, aun sin "a la gente".



I'm not sure I agree, Laz. Elided sentences aren't "technically" correct without the elided portion. "Gustar", meaning 'agradar' requires a CI to be correct per my grammars. Without the CI the sentence is syntactically lacking -- therefore 'incorrect'. I believe it is 'descriptively common' -but it is not technically correct. Can you provide support for the idea that 'intransitive' "gustar", when meaning 'agradar', can exist without a stated CI? I could be misunderstanding my grammars -- and I'm open to changing my thinking. I just need to see some support.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Dudu678 said:


> Si no puede pasarse a pasiva nos quedamos en la primera parte.
> 
> _La "definición" de verbo transitivo es que en la voz activa lleva un complemento directo (cut).
> 
> _Lo otro es la explicación de qué puede pasar con ese complemento directo. Nada, que no me pillas dos veces.



Poder pasar al pasivo no tiene nada que ver con el tema. Así que, opino que complica el tema en mencionarlo. La definición es simplemente que puede llevar complemento directo. Nada más.

Como dice el DRAE:

*verbo t**ransitivo.* * 1.     * m._ Gram._ El que se construye con complemento directo; p. ej., _amar a Dios, decir la verdad._


----------



## virgilio

Magmod,
            Re your:
"An intransitive verb has a subject but does not have an object
She speaks
It pleases
I smile

For example:
Her secret admirer gave her *a valentine card*. 
This sentence contains an *indirect object*. An indirect object is, in a sense, the recipient of the direct object.
To determine if a verb has an indirect object, isolate the verb and ask _to whom?_ _to what?_, _for whom?_, or _for what?_ after it. The answer is the indirect object.

I know what you mean but I suggest that using the verb "to give" as an example of an intransitive verb (if I have understood you aright) could lead to confusion, for that verb is very frequently used transitively, as indeed it is in the sentence you cite:
"Her secret admirer gave her *a valentine card*."
The verb object (_aka_ CD) here is plainly "(a valentine) card". The presence of a dative (_aka _indirect object _aka_ CI) is not of itself a sign of an intransitive verb.
I suppose, if you wanted to use "to give" intransitively, you could use "gimme!"

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> Englishplus's underlined statement there is an oversimplification. There is no direct object in -"I told her" -- and yet 'her' is still clearly the IO. Yes, I know that the 'implied' DO is 'it' - "I told it to her" or "I told her it".


 
In _I told her_, the IO is _her_. There is definitely a DO, which is implicit in that particular sentence, but needs to be explicitly stated in the context in which _I told her_ is said or written:

Person 1: Mary heard the news
Person 2: How did she find out?
Person 3: I told her

The DO here is _news._ Without this DO in the overall context, _I told her_ is nonsense and ungrammatical. Ergo, to parse it is absurd.

Therefore, the rule holds. There cannot be an IO without a DO.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> In _I told her_, the IO is _her_. There is definitely a DO, which is implicit in that particular sentence, but needs to be explicitly stated in the context in which _I told her_ is said or written:
> 
> Person 1: Mary heard the news
> Person 2: How did she find out?
> Person 3: I told her
> 
> The DO here is _news._ Without this DO in the overall context, _I told her_ is nonsense and ungrammatical. Ergo, to parse it is absurd.
> 
> Therefore, the rule holds. There cannot be an IO without a DO.


I guess what I'm saying is that grammatically speaking an IO often appears with a transitive verb and without a DO. "Implied", in many cases, sure. Agreed. But saying "I told her" is far from _ungrammatical nonsense_ when a speaker and hearer are talking to each other and they know that the 'unsaid DO' is. 

As I said - that definition was an oversimplification with regard to sentence structure that a non-native would come across in many writings they will see. Good definitions have to explain for the syntax that exists in the real world of speech, writing and dialog. 

I wrote(VT) to him(IO) yesterday.
I teach(VT) those kids(IO) every year.

Right there shows at least two examples where the DO is not mentioned nor one implied or even remotely pertinent to the sentence. The rule, as stated, is practically non utilitarian for the learner of English -- who, upon the reading of such common sentences, would be feverishly looking for the 'DO' --since the 'rule says it has to be there'.  Given that I'm pretty sure you won't tell me that those two sentences are grammatical nonsense -- can you tell me the implied thing that 'was written' in number 1? Email, Letter, directions?? Does it matter? Not a bit. In #2 -- does it matter what is taught every year? Not a bit. So 'is there' an implied direct object in those sentences? Is it required? Pretty hard to prove. 

That's my point. There are probably scores of other sentences I could come up with containing transitive verbs and only IO in the sentence that are complete thoughts without any discernible DO germane to the communication.

Grant


----------



## Magmod

virgilio said:


> Magmod,
> I suppose, if you wanted to use "to give" intransitively, you could use "gimme!"


 
I thought Newdestiny explained it correctly with: 

I told her
I wrote to him yesterday …etc.
But 

gimme = give it to me > has CD = it, and CI = *to* me 
= according to Jeromed not CI but the object of *to* post# 10 
 In Post #4, I tried to explain that gustar is intransitive and translated it as *is pleasing* instead of *like *thus avoiding the problem of the subject in English becoming the object in Spanish. 

Me gusta la pelicula ( subject) = I (subject) like the movie(object) = Literally: The movie (subject) is pleasing to me.
 The original question post#1 is solved with the literal translation and makes sense why the verb is in the plural both in English and Spanish.

Me gustan las peliculas = The movies are pleasing to me. 
I like the movies > doesn’t make sense of why gustan is used in the plural.
In general one needs the CI in English with intransitive verbs or copulative verbs when translating intransitive verbs: me gusta, me parece etc.

Best regards


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> I wrote(VT) to him(IO) yesterday.
> I teach(VT) those kids(IO) every year.
> Grant


 
Depends on who you listen to. 

Yesterday, when you gave _I told her_ as an example of a sentence with an IO but no DO, my first reaction was to write that _her_ was not a IO there, but a DO, since that's what I had learned in high school English. However, since I had nothing at hand to back me up, I edited my post, but the question continued to nag at me.

Well, last night I checked my trustworthy _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language,_ and this is what they have to say (Chapter 4, section 4.3 _Ditransitive clauses_):

<<In canonical clauses containing just one object, that object is always a direct object, even if it corresponds semantically to the indirect object of a ditransitive clause:

i _She teaches the first-year students introductory logic_ [IO + DO]

ii _She teaches introductory logic._ [DO with semantic role of ditransitive DO]

iii _She teaches the first-year students_ [DO with semantic role of ditransitive IO] >>

They go on to say:

<<...Except in certain non-canonical constructions (such as the passive), therefore, an IO is found only in combination with a DO.>>

BTW, they also hold that in _John gives the book to Mary_, _Mary_ is not an IO, but the object of the preposition _to!_

Too bad there's no English RAE, so that we can say "this is what's considered standard." 

(My intent here has not been to argue, but to show you a different point of view in the 'democratic' Anglo-Saxon language world).

Take care.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> Well, last night I checked my trustworthy _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language,_ and this is what they have to say (Chapter 4, section 4.3 _Ditransitive clauses_):
> 
> <<In canonical clauses containing just one object, that object is always a direct object, even if it corresponds semantically to the indirect object of a ditransitive clause:
> 
> i _She teaches the first-year students introductory logic_ [IO + DO]
> 
> ii _She teaches introductory logic._ [DO with semantic role of ditransitive DO]
> 
> iii _She teaches the first-year students_ [DO with semantic role of ditransitive IO] >>
> 
> They go on to say:
> 
> <<...Except in certain non-canonical constructions (such as the passive), therefore, an IO is found only in combination with a DO.>>
> 
> BTW, they also hold that in _John gives the book to Mary_, _Mary_ is not an IO, but the object of the preposition _to!_
> 
> Too bad there's no English RAE, so that we can say "this is what's considered standard."
> 
> (My intent here has not been to argue, but to show you a different point of view in the 'democratic' Anglo-Saxon language world).
> 
> Take care.



Good.. Well now we have a horse of a completely different color. My main and only reason for entering this thread was to react to the oversimplification from that other source of yours. The 'fact' is: that a 'syntactic' indirect object can appear with a transitive verb without a 'syntactic' direct object as my two examples prove. Often grammarians overstep their role to make everything 'work' in a nice neat little package. When presented with the problem sentences like I posed that 'break their rules' they have to bring semantics into the issue -- which is, kinda like cheating, or make up another 'pseudo-syntax' like ditransitive to explain the phenomenon. 

Ironically, given what i just said, I like Cambridge's explanation and unlike your other source it is at least "complete". What I feared with your first source was that non natives would try to conclude that 'her' was a Direct Object in "I told her" which it is not.. At least it's not a 'syntactic DO'. 

And as I read it again I have to take exception to their opening statement. A 'syntactic indirect object' can be a 'semantic direct object' -- not the other way around. A person who is the beneficiary of a verb's action is the 'syntactic indirect object' by all definitions I've ever read. 'her' in "I told her" still has 'her' being a beneficiary not the syntactic direct object of telling. You're right - there is no English RAE and so each grammarian can 'make their own conclusions'. So unfortunately I have to accept 'your opinion' on this topic and you have to accept my 'opinion'. ;-) I'm so glad for the RAE -- except when they disagree with me... 

Grant


----------

