# He kissed.



## JungKim

Is it possible to simply say "He kissed." without mentioning any object of the verb "kiss"?
For example, in a context where the speaker wanted to emphasize the action of kissing itself without referring to whom he kissed, is it possible?

Or is it unnatural or ungrammatical even in that or any other context?

Incidentally, I understand it's entirely possible to say "They kissed." to mean "They kissed each other."


----------



## Glenfarclas

JungKim said:


> Is it possible to simply say "He kissed." without mentioning any object of the verb "kiss"?



Almost never, no.  If you have to ask, then don't try it.


----------



## suzi br

Have you actually GOT a context?  You know how it is in English ... odd things can work in odd contexts.

In general, I would say, no, it is not possible.


----------



## JungKim

Thanks.
So, if someone says, "He kissed here.", by "here" they can mean only the object of his kissing (e.g., on the cheek) but never the place his kissing took place. Right?


----------



## suzi br

I still wonder why you are trying to say this?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We can say _They kissed_, so why not _He kissed_?  Because when we say _They kissed_, there is an _each other_ implied.


----------



## JungKim

suzi br said:


> I still wonder why you are trying to say this?


Non-native speakers generally rely on dictionaries to figure out whether a verb can be used transitively and/or intransitively. So for verbs like "kiss" that dictionaries say can be used both transitively and intransitively, non-native speakers might easily assume that it's okay to say either "He kissed her here." or "He kissed here." (If the context is clear about who he kissed.) But in reality the latter sounds weird even in a context where it's clear the person who he kissed is "her".

I wanted to check if that last statement is true. And if so I wanted to figure out why.


----------



## suzi br

JungKim said:


> Non-native speakers generally rely on dictionaries to figure out whether a verb can be used transitively and/or intransitively. So for verbs like "kiss" that dictionaries say can be used both transitively and intransitively, non-native speakers generally assume that it's okay to say either "He kissed her here." or "He kissed here." (If the context is clear about who he kissed.) But in reality the latter sounds weird even in a context where it's clear the person who he kissed is "her".
> 
> I wanted to check if that last statement is true. And if so I wanted to figure out why.



Right, so I agree that he kissed sounds weird in all cases, but if the agent of the verb is plural the oddness goes away.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Does your dictionary really say that to kiss can be intransitive, JK?

I'm struggling to find an intransitive example.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

suzi br said:


> if the agent of the verb is plural the oddness goes away.


Only because we assume a reflexive direct object.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JungKim said:


> But in reality the latter sounds weird even in a context where it's clear the person who he kissed is "her".
> 
> I wanted to check if that last statement is true.



It's tolerable if "here" is being used a noun _and_ it means something like "on this cheek," and not "under this tree."



JungKim said:


> And if so I wanted to figure out why.



Don't use "kiss" intransitively with a singular subject (or even with a plural subject, unless it means "... each other.")



Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm struggling to find an intransitive example.



"They leaned in and kissed."


----------



## suzi br

Thomas Tompion said:


> Only because we assume a reflexive direct object.


If you say so .. that is a level of grammar labelling I cannot cope with. 
I do know, however,  that he kissed sounds odd and we kissed does not.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

suzi br said:


> If you say so .. that is a level of grammar labelling I cannot cope with.
> I do know, however,  that he kissed sounds odd and we kissed does not.


Yes, but how about _We kissed, but not each other_?  If that sounds fine to you, then maybe you aren't assuming a reflexive direct object.  It sounds very odd to me.


----------



## suzi br

I don't know what your point is, Thomas.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

suzi br said:


> I don't know what your point is, Thomas.


Does _We kissed, but not each other _seem odd to you?

If it doesn't, then maybe you are using the verb intransitively, something I find bizarre.

If it does, then you are using it transitively, with an implied object, in my view.


----------



## JungKim

What about this? This is what I've just found:
A Daily Mail article titled "Love at first kiss? Blake Garvey locks lips with Jessica, who says she never hooks up on the first date, as the Bachelor Australia competition heats up":


> Soon thereafter the deep voiced hunk gave Jessica a rose, securing her passage through next week, and planted a kiss on her lips.
> Obviously ecstatic, Jessica said joyously 'I can't believe I broke my rule!,' explaining that *she never kisses on the first date*.



I don't know if this is one of those "odd contexts," but apparently this does work. What do you guys think?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think there is an implied direct object.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

There's also the disgraceful habit of kissing and telling.  We haven't discussed that yet.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think there is an implied direct object.


So the question may be why an implied direct object is allowed in this case and not many other cases.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> So the question may be why an implied direct object is allowed in this case and not many other cases.


The answer to that may lie in the physical nature of the activity.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> The answer to that may lie in the physical nature of the activity.


What do you mean by 'the physical nature of the activity'?
And how does context change it?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> What do you mean by 'the physical nature of the activity'?
> And how does context change it?


I'm rather surprised that you should ask these questions, particularly the first one.


----------



## Andygc

The OED describes the relevant use of "kiss" as "intransitive or absolute" (absolute = implied direct object) with the rider "usually of two persons, in reciprocal sense". Note: "or" and "usually". JungKim has given us 





> Obviously ecstatic, Jessica said joyously 'I can't believe I broke my rule!,' explaining that *she never kisses on the first date*.


 and I don't see that as _one of those "odd contexts,"_. I see it as a perfectly normal context.



JungKim said:


> What do you guys think?


Apart from hating being called "guys", I think your example is clearly an intransitive use of "to kiss" and I do not accept TT's implied direct object. There's a sometimes associated verb, which can equally be transitive or intransitive  "I don't fuck on a first date"  There's no implied direct object there, either.


----------



## Myridon

"She never kisses on a first date." specifically means "She doesn't kiss her date on a first date." She could kiss other people (and things) during the date and not invalidate the sentence.
Bob took her to Blarney Castle.  She kissed the Blarney Stone but not Bob because she never kisses on a first date.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Myridon said:


> "She never kisses on a first date." specifically means "She doesn't kiss her date on a first date." She could kiss other people (and things) during the date and not invalidate the sentence.
> Bob took her to Blarney Castle.  She kissed the Blarney Stone but not Bob because she never kisses on a first date.


I'm not clear which side of the implied Blarney Stone this places you, Myridon.

Do you believe the verb can be intransitive?  _What are you doing this afternoon? _ _Oh I'll be doing a little kissing?_

I don't accept Andy's fucking parallel; I can imagine someone saying that he's going to be doing some fucking in the course of the evening.


----------



## Myridon

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not clear which side of the implied Blarney Stone this places you, Myridon.


I'm saying that there's an implied object in "She never kisses (her date) on a first date."


----------



## Andygc

Thomas Tompion said:


> _What are you doing this afternoon? _ _Oh I'll be doing a little kissing?_


So what is wrong with that? I cannot see any reason to mark that with "".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> So what is wrong with that? I cannot see any reason to mark that with "".


The thumbs down means that I couldn't say it.  This means we disagree.  I'm surprised you feel that merits a ; it's almost a default state.


----------



## Andygc

Hmm. I thought that we usually agreed.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> Hmm. I thought that we usually agreed.


Just teasing, Andy.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Andy & Thomas: You two should kiss and make up! (Figuratively, of course .)


----------



## PaulQ

A few alternatives:
A: “What do you think of the twins?
B(i): “I approve, they kiss well.” Intransitive = have the ability to kiss well.
B(ii): “I approve, they kiss well.” Transitive absolute = kiss anybody well
B (iii): “I approve, they kiss well.” = Transitive, reciprocal  = they kiss each other well
B (iv): “I approve, they kiss well.” = Anticausative, inchoative, or ergative intransitive = They are pleasant to kiss.


----------



## JungKim

I'm surprised that native speakers here distinguish an intransitive use from a transitive use with an implied object. Most dictionaries, I believe, would mark an implied object case as "*in*transitive" or simply "no object". The "no object" label some dictionaries use, instead of the "intransitive" label, to show that the use of the verb is intransitive. So, even for a purely intransitive use (e.g., "happen" in "What's happening?"), such dictionaries use the same "no object" label.

What I'm trying to say is that no dictionary that I know of makes a distinction between an intransitive use and a transitive use with an implied object. Not that whatever dictionaries do we should follow, but what's the merit, if any, of making the distinction?


----------



## Glenfarclas

JungKim said:


> what's the merit, if any, of making the distinction?



It helps you avoid awkward, unidiomatic uses of the verb "kiss."


----------



## JungKim

Glenfarclas said:


> It helps you avoid awkward, unidiomatic uses of the verb "kiss."


Honestly, do you really think it can so help a non-native speaker when in reality even native speakers can easily disagree as to whether to view a legitimate use of the verb as "clearly an intransitive use" (post #23) or as "an implied direct object" (post #17)?


----------



## Glenfarclas

JungKim said:


> Honestly, do you really think it can so help a non-native speaker when in reality even native speakers can easily disagree as to whether to view a legitimate use of the verb as "clearly an intransitive use" (post #23) or as "an implied direct object" (post #17)?



I gave all the help a non-native speaker needs on this question back in *post #2*:

"If you have to ask, then don't try it."​


----------



## Andygc

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> Andy & Thomas: You two should kiss and make up! (Figuratively, of course .)


The first thought that came to mind when I checked my email this morning. 

JungKim, there seems to be a confusion of terminology among the natives here. You mentioned "no object" - or, as the OED puts it "absolute". As far as I'm concerned, if a verb has no object it is not transitive. 

"I don't kiss on a first date" is directly comparable with "I don't eat between meals". It is impossible to eat between meals without food, just as it is impossible to kiss on a first date without a date to kiss. Using the "there is an implied direct object" approach, it would be wrong to call "eat" _intransitive_. Using the approach to terminology that others have used for "kiss", it's _transitive_. Accepting there is always an implied direct object (crisps, chocolate, an apple, sweets ...) would make it (to me) _absolute_. I'll continue to call it _intransitive_.


----------



## JungKim

Glenfarclas said:


> I gave all the help a non-native speaker needs on this question back in *post #2*:
> 
> "If you have to ask, then don't try it."​


Do you mean that I should not use it when in doubt?
Actually, I -- and perhaps most non-native speakers -- would never use/try a usage if unsure of its validity, unless of course I'd like to try it out to figure out how native speakers would react to the try. That's that, but the whole point of this post, including my question in post #35, has nothing to do with the trying but with the asking itself, I'm afraid.


----------



## JungKim

By the way, I have come across an interesting related article on this transitive verbs with implied objects.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JungKim said:


> Do you mean that I should not use it when in doubt?



I mean that if you do not already know when you can and can't use the sentence "He kissed.", then you are unfortunately not at a sufficiently advanced level to use it.  It would virtually never be the correct thing to say.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> [...]
> "I don't kiss on a first date" is directly comparable with "I don't eat between meals". It is impossible to eat between meals without food, just as it is impossible to kiss on a first date without a date to kiss. Using the "there is an implied direct object" approach, it would be wrong to call "eat" _intransitive_. Using the approach to terminology that others have used for "kiss", it's _transitive_. Accepting there is always an implied direct object (crisps, chocolate, an apple, sweets ...) would make it (to me) _absolute_. I'll continue to call it _intransitive_.


Hi Andy,

I think your fucking example was nearer the mark.  It is impossible to read without having something written in your hand, so, you'd say, we can't say* I spent the afternoon reading*?

We can happily say* I eat late on a Thursday*, where *I kiss late on a date* would be absurd.

For me *to eat* has a fully-fledged intransitive use.


----------



## Andygc

Thomas Tompion said:


> so, you'd say, we can't say* I spent the afternoon reading*?


No, I'd say that's fine as a good example of intransitive use.


Thomas Tompion said:


> *I kiss late on a date* would be absurd.


Not at all - if you meant "I hold back and don't kiss a girl until we've talked a lot and eaten and had a drink and walked a while". The assonance is good, too.  Oh, there's another intransitive "eaten" there as well.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> [...]
> Not at all - if you meant "I hold back and don't kiss a girl until we've talked a lot and eaten and had a drink and walked a while". The assonance is good, too.  Oh, there's another intransitive "eaten" there as well.


This means you are happy to ask of a girl "Does she kiss?"  I think if someone asked me that, I'd ask "Does she kiss what?"

But for you that would be a sensible question, would it?


----------



## Andygc

Yes, I'm far too much of a gentleman to ask "Does she fuck?"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> Yes, I'm far too much of a gentleman to ask "Does she fuck?"


You are a constant source of surprise and delight to me, Andy.

  You know I would regard the second question as grammatical, though in some contexts ungentlemanly, as you suggest.

  I find 'Does she kiss?' quite off the wall, so I still don't accept your parallel.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> What I'm trying to say is that no dictionary that I know of makes a distinction between an intransitive use and a transitive use with an implied object. Not that whatever dictionaries do we should follow, but what's the merit, if any, of making the distinction?


The transitive/intransitive marking of a verb should be seen in two ways (i) the main and predominant use of transitive/intransitive - "Does it have an object or not?" and (ii) the technical use of transitive/intransitive*: OED.* _intransitive: "Grammar_. Of verbs and their construction: Expressing action which does not pass over to an object;"

_intransitive transitive: "Grammar_. Of verbs and their construction: Expressing action which passes over to an object;"

You will see that if there is an _implied _object, then the action passes to that.

Have you a hammer? - *Have *transitive
I have. - *Have *transitive with the unstated object - a hammer.

Who fell? -> fall, intransitive
I fell. > fall, intransitive

There is thus a difference between an intransitive verb and a verb whose object is there but not stated.

The classification of verbs is a complex subject and, to make matters worse, some of the terms are used carelessly, and others are poorly defined and yet others have more than one name.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

PaulQ said:


> The transitive/intransitive marking of a verb should be seen in two ways (i) the main and predominant use of transitive/intransitive - "Does it have an object or not?" and (ii) the technical use of transitive/intransitive*: OED.* _intransitive: "Grammar_. Of verbs and their construction: Expressing action which does not pass over to an object;"
> 
> _intransitive: "Grammar_. Of verbs and their construction: Expressing action which passes over to an object;"
> 
> You will see that if there is an _implied _object, then the action passes to that.
> 
> Have you a hammer? - *Have *transitive
> I have. - *Have *transitive with the unstated object - a hammer.
> 
> Who fell? -> fall, intransitive
> I fell. > fall, intransitive
> 
> There is thus a difference between an intransitive verb and a verb whose object is there but not stated.
> 
> The classification of verbs is a complex subject and, to make matters worse, some of the terms are used carelessly, and others are poorly defined and yet others have more than one name.



Hi,

I have. = I have seen a hammer. What is understood/unstated is the action of seeing (having seen) a hammer, no? As in
"Have you been to the market today?" - "Yes, I have." -
"Did you buy carrots?" - "Yes, I did."


----------



## PaulQ

There's a horrible cut and paste mistake in my post above, which I have now corrected. (_intransitive transitive: "Grammar_. Of verbs and their construction: Expressing action which passes over to an object;")



ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> I have. = I have seen a hammer. What is understood/unstated is the action of seeing (having seen) a hammer, no?


Yes, if that is the context. For the example, I was careful to choose the verb that means to possess and not as the *have *that is the case marker, so as to avoid any confusion, but "case marker have" works too.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Right (although I think most people would say "Have you got a hammer?" or "Do you have a hammer?" nowadays).


----------



## PaulQ

Yes, they probably would.


----------



## Kirusha

I think I might have an odd context. Two preschool girls are talking to each other about a boy they don't want to be friends with. When asked why they say "He kisses" (by analogy with "He tickles"). Would that work?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes - that's very good.


----------



## Glenfarclas

Kirusha said:


> When asked why they say "He kisses" (by analogy with "He tickles"). Would that work?



I strongly doubt that any such girls would say either "He kisses" or "He tickles."  Very unnatural.  They would probably say something like "He keeps tickling us."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I agree with Glenfarclas.

Also the analogy with _tickles_ is unsatisfactory.  _To tickle_ has a well known intransitive use - _my back tickles_.

I don't think enough has been made of the point made by Glenfarclas, back at post #11, that _to kiss_ needn't have a stated object when used with a plural subject, but needs one when the subject is singular.

_They kissed_ is fine, but _he kissed _(without an object)__ is not, in my view.

With a plural subject, the action is reciprocal - _they kissed_ (each other, understood).

With a singular subject, we need an object - _he kissed her jewels_.


----------



## PaulQ

Oh... and I saw them as quite realistic and natural... I can hear them now... It is probably an absolute construction though.


----------



## Kirusha

Is that reciprocality that makes "He kisses" different from "He bites" or "He kicks" (prople do say these things, at least about animals) or is it a clash with the real world (we don't find kissing as objectionable as biting or kicking)?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Kirusha said:


> Is that reciprocality that makes "He kisses" different from "He bites" or "He kicks" (prople do say these things, at least about animals) or is it a clash with the real world (we don't find kissing as objectionable as biting or kicking)?


I don't think it has anything to do with the action being agreeable or objectionable.

Certainly we do talk of animals, horses for example, biting or kicking, in the singular sense you suggest, Kirusha, but they do it when another horse isn't biting or kicking them.  For me it's the reciprocity which matters.


----------



## Kirusha

Does "He fought" as a stand-alone utterance also sound odd to you, TT (if I may)?


----------



## PaulQ

The use of "It kicks" falls into either
B(i): “I approve, they kiss well.” Intransitive = have the ability to kiss well.
or
B(ii): “I approve, they kiss well.” Transitive absolute = kiss anybody well 
(He kissed.)

e.g. "Beware of the horse it kicks." with the meaning B(i) "It has the ability/tendency to kick randomly" or B(ii) "It kicks people."


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't think enough has been made of the point made by Glenfarclas, back at post #11, that _to kiss_ needn't have a stated object when used with a plural subject, but needs one when the subject is singular.
> 
> _They kissed_ is fine, but _he kissed _(without an object)__ is not, in my view.
> 
> With a plural subject, the action is reciprocal - _they kissed_ (each other, understood).
> 
> With a singular subject, we need an object - _he kissed her jewels_.



And where do you put the example "she never kisses on the first date" in post #16?
Are we back to the hair-splitting distinction between a purely intransitive use and a transitive use with an implied object?


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> Are we back to the hair-splitting distinction between a purely intransitive use and a transitive use with an implied object?


You may not like it; you may not accept it - but it is there. 

In a purely intransitive verb "I fell", the verb acts on the subject. -> Fell is what happened to "I"
In a transitive verb "He bit an apple deeply." the verb acts on the object.
In a transitive absolute "He took an apple and bit deeply.", on what does the verb act? I suggest it is the implied object "the apple." Bit is what happened to the...


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> You may not like it; you may not accept it - but it is there.
> 
> In a purely intransitive verb "I fell", the verb acts on the subject. -> Fell is what happened to "I"
> In a transitive verb "He bit an apple deeply." the verb acts on the object.
> In a transitive absolute He took an apple and bit deeply.", on what does the verb act? I suggest it is the implied object "the apple." Bit is what happened to the...



Paul, it's not about me not liking it or accepting it. It's about it being able to get a bit too hazy and vague depending on context. Your example of _He took an apple and bit deeply._ is rather a clear case of a transitive use with an implied object. Even I have no problem of understanding it. So no one would. 

But the example in post #16 (_she never kisses on the first date_) is not as clear a case, I'm afraid, as abundantly shown by the exchange between TT and Andy.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JungKim said:


> Paul, it's not about me not liking it or accepting it. It's about it being able to get a bit too hazy and vague depending on context. Your example of _He took an apple and bit deeply._ is rather a clear case of a transitive use with an implied object. Even I have no problem of understanding it. So no one would.
> 
> But the example in post #16 (_she never kisses on the first date_) is not as clear a case, I'm afraid, as abundantly shown by the exchange between TT and Andy.



Why do you want to use the sentence you asked about in the original post, "He kissed"?  Maybe this conversation would be easier for everyone if you told us something about the intended use and the context.


----------



## JungKim

Glenfarclas said:


> Why do you want to use the sentence you asked about in the original post, "He kissed"?  Maybe this conversation would be easier for everyone if you told us something about the intended use and the context.


Sorry for failing to make it easier for everyone. But it's not like I intentionally made it hard or anything. And I think I've learned more from this thread than I would have had the conversation been "easier."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Kirusha said:


> Does "He fought" as a stand-alone utterance also sound odd to you, TT (if I may)?


I don't know what a stand-alone utterance is.

I don't put *He fought* in the same category at all.  It's very normal to say* He fought in the XXX war*.


----------



## Andygc

PaulQ said:


> Oh... and *I saw them as quite realistic and natural*... I can hear them now... It is probably an absolute construction though.


So do I Paul. I have two daughters, both of whom were once small girls. TT's "my back tickles" is a different use of "tickle" - the back isn't doing anything. There's also the sentence using both verbs absolutely (not transitively) "I don't like the way grandpa kisses, his beard tickles"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> [...] There's also the sentence using both verbs absolutely (not transitively) "I don't like the way grandpa kisses, his beard tickles"


You've persuaded me, Andy.  I could accept 'I don't like the way grandpa kisses'.

There's also a nice example in the British Corpus: _She's very lovely and I'm sure she kisses like a veteran, but if you mean he's been sleeping with her, no! That's not Tom's style._ A private arrangement. Darcy, Lilian. Richmond, Surrey: Mills & Boon, 1993.


----------



## Curiosity777

To me, "He kissed" reads just as either "He touched himself with his lips" or "He touched someone with his lips". So, without adding more a context can't I decide which of them the sentence actually means.
I suppose .. because of this ambiguity doesn't it make sense on its own.. though being not sure of

It's just my subjective opinion based on my accumulated English-knowledge.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

This would be all right, though, wouldn't it? 

"What did he do wrong?" / "What did he do to offend you?" 

*"He kissed." *


----------



## suzi br

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> This would be all right, though, wouldn't it?
> 
> "What did he do wrong?" / "What did he do to offend you?"
> 
> *"He kissed." *



Hmm. 
Not to me. It still seems like there’s something missing.


----------



## Curiosity777

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> This would be all right, though, wouldn't it?
> 
> "What did he do wrong?" / "What did he do to offend you?"
> 
> *"He kissed." *



I agree with Suzi br.

Without specifying an object and only with the context, we can't know whom he kissed.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

How about this, then?

"What about him don't you like?"

"*He kisses.*" (Different tense, though (like Grandpa, above.) Maybe it doesn't work in the past, except if you're talking about someone who is dead - but _nil nisi bonum_...


----------



## suzi br

Same. It still seems odd to me.
See Glen’s point at #53. 

There’s a lot of to and fro about grammatical details in this long, old thread, and it’s hard to see what people really think is “OK” or not in terms of advising learners. 

For me, Glen also nailed that point at the start of the thread: don’t use anything that’s so disputed!


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

"Don't use anything that's so disputed." is good advice, as in the case of the person who told me "My English is really shitty." But if there's no possibility of offensive language involved (including pronunciation, like the well-known "beach/bitch"), people will most likely either let it pass because they can figure it out, or help you by correcting you so you won't repeat it.


----------

