# Transitivity and intransitivity



## Bradgiarco

Hello,

Leaving out the basic examples that are the same in all text books, like 電気を消す vs 電気が消える, I don't quite understand how japanese uses transitivity and intransitivity. The concept is the same in my own language, so that should be clear, but maybe usage is a bit different... 


大丈夫！きっと当てて見せるわ！(A woman aiming and about to shoot an arrow)
The object is not explicitly stated in the sentence, but considering the fact that this sentence means something like _It's Ok, You'll see how I hit it_, clearly _hit_ has a transitive meaning here.

So I deduced in japanese there was no need to explicitly state the object. And then here come the contradictions...:


彼は発泡したが当たらなかった 
Exactly the same case as before, and here intransitive form is used. 

And worse:

福引きでカメラが当たった
_      I won a camera in the lottery._ To me, clearly 当てる should be used here. 

The most astonishing thing:

外れた！　vs　外したか！　
      I have heard both of them in identical situations: the characters shot something and missed. 

Another one:

石田さん、見える？彼が苦しんでる
      I have heard dozens of times the expression _よく見ろ！_ which uses 見る, transitive. Why using an intransitive form there?



PD: I swear I try every time to make my posts shorter, but I've been quite unsuccessful so far


----------



## frequency

Bradgiarco said:


> 電気を消す vs 電気が消える


Good. transitive vs intransitive. （兄が）電気を消す vs 電気が消える　（私が）窓を開ける vs 窓が開く

当てる (T) vs 当たる (I)
Note that transitive verbs use "object + を".

大丈夫！きっと当てて見せるわ
Yes, transitive. 当てる当てて. Note that the subject and object are omitted.
大丈夫！（あなたは）きっと（～を）当てて見せるわ

彼は発砲したが当たらなかった
Yes, intransitive. 当たる当たらない　彼は発砲したが（～に）当たらなかった。を is not used.

福引きでカメラが当たった
Intransitive. 当たる当たった. If using transitive? You need to say 福引きでカメラを当てる。福引きでカメラを当てた。
カメラが当たった・カメラを当てた are both okay.

外れた！　vs　外したか！　
Intransitive vs transitive.
弾が外れた！vs 弾を外した！

See the transitive examples. Even though the subjects are omitted, you can feel "Someone does/did that."
In intransitive ones, that is not the focus.

見える is always intransitive. We don't say ～を見える.


> _よく見ろ！_ which uses 見る, transitive.


Yes, 見る is basically transitive. ～をよく見ろ！～を is omitted.

We have ～を当たる, too. 11. 当たる is used as a transitive verb. 彼を当たる means that you make contact, etc, to consult with him.
We have ～を外れる, too. To go off/away, to go out of, etc.
They have different meanings. As for 当てる・当たる, we have this exception but you can see that 当てる is transitive and 当たる is intransitive.


----------



## 森人さん

Wo would indicate doing (transitive)?


----------



## frequency

Mainly, "an accusative case particle: a grammatical marker following the direct object."
を wiktionary
It has other usages, too (2 & 3).


----------



## Bradgiarco

Hello! 

Thanks for your answer! Still, I have some doubts: essentially, since in English/Catalan/Spanish the verb takes the same form regardless if it is used as transitive or intransitive, I don't have to think about it. But in Japanese it's important, and I don't understand when to use one form or the other. 

Somehow, it seems as if in Japanese the border between what's transitive or intransitive is not clear. 

Here we go:


The first two sentences. The meaning is the same, _hit_ (a target) and one has to hit _something_, so I would have chosen the transitive one with no doubt. Why does the author use the intransitive form in the second sentence?
The third one: what impresses me is that you say that both of them are okay. With no difference in meaning? 

_hazureru _vs _hazusu_. Same question. Can I use both to say _I missed_? I'm not sure how to interpret that you put the focus on the subject with _hazusu_

You have to see _something._ That's why you say _yoku miro_ (I think). But then I have also found _mieru_... Baffling to me.
In a nutshell: according how transitive and intransitive verbs are defined, I do not understand the usages and how it is possible that more than one is correct.


----------



## frequency

Bradgiarco said:


> I don't understand when to use one form or the other.


We have a pair of transitive and intransitive verbs. Your 当たる・当てる are a good example. They're different in form.


> Why does the author use the intransitive form in the second sentence?


That is 彼は発砲したが、弾が当たらなかった。「弾が」 is omitted, because it's understandable without it. See 弾が当たる（当たらない） is intransitive use. One clause + one clause with the conjunction が. [彼は発砲した]が[弾が当たらなかった].


> With no difference in meaning?


Yes. To say you've got a camera after fukubiki, you can use both. What the two are doing a bit different. In transitive examples,


> you can feel "Someone does/did that."





> _hazureru _vs _hazusu_.


In Japanese, verbs are classified into transitive or intransitive. Hazureru is defined as intransitive and hazusu is transitive. But we have some exceptions such as ～を外れる: チームを外れる.
And their meanings vary according to how they're used, so I can't say they always mean "miss".



> That's why you say _yoku miro_ (I think). But then I have also found _mieru_...


miru and mieru are different verbs. Mieru is called 可能動詞.

カメラが当たる。 You say 当たる. What? Camera. You say Camera. Then what? 当たる. Nobody's there. You're talking about camera only.
（ぼくは）カメラを当てる。You say 当てる. Who? ぼく. What? Camera.


----------



## frequency

森人さん said:


> Would te indicate transitive and ta indicate intransitive in most cases?


No. taberutabete, nomunonde are just katsuyō, conjugation. Is my post answering your question?


森人さん said:


> Transitive verb: *Person は/が Object を Verb*
> Intransitive verb: *Noun が/は Verb*


Yes.


----------



## Contrafibularity

Whether one uses an intransitive verb or a transitive verb in a given situation depends on one's subjectivity, i.e. how one looks at the incident they are going to describe.  Using and extending your example sentences, I will explain how _I_ would differentiate transitivity and intransitivity in each case.  


彼は発砲したが（弾は）*当たら*なかった。<I>    I am simply stating what I saw. 
彼は発砲したが（彼は弾を）*当てられ*なかった。<T>   I feel there is something wrong with him; he is too shaky or the target is moving fast and he is not skillful enough.  


福引きでカメラが*当たった*。<I>     Same as above.   Winning the camera is a chance event to me.  
福引きで（私は）カメラを*当てた*。<T>    I targeted at the camera in the raffle and I won it.     


（弾が）*外れた*！<I>    Same as above.  
（私は弾を）*外した*か！<T>　 I am confident in my shooting skills, but I missed the target.  


石田さん、*見える*？彼が苦しんでる。<I>   The sight of him suffering must be in 石田さん's vision.  I am implicitly reproaching 石田さん's indifference.　
石田さん、*見て*。彼が苦しんでる。<T>    I am drawing 石田さん's attention because 石田さん is not looking at him. 

What I have said so far is just one possible rendering to each case, and there are other situations that make the utterance of those speeches possible.  It is hard to draw any useful general observation from here, but when I use transitive verbs, I am focusing more on the subject (intention, ability, state of mind, etc.)


----------



## frequency

Bradgiarco said:


> I'm not sure how to interpret that you put the focus on the subject with _hazusu_


Sorry I forgot. I told you hazusu is transitive. Transitive verbs generally and necessarily need a subject and object. But the subject can be omitted when it is enough known to hearer and speaker. (You know subject omission is a different issue from intransitive/transitive.)


----------



## beguate

En idioma japones el tema o el interés del hablante es tanto importante como el sujeto. A veces se quita o se desaparece la palabra del sujeto en la oración. 　

福引きでカメラが当たった
El interés del hablante es La cámara del premio el sistema de la lotería u otros premios de la lotería menos el ganador.
Los oyentes espera que venga la mención del detalle de la cámara o la lotería al siguiente.
El oyente no puede imaginar quién lo ganó, tampoco le interesa quién ganó al hablante.


Aさんに福引きでカメラが当たった
El interés del hablante es muy amplio, no se sabe exactamente, hay que esperar que va a seguir.



Aさんが福引でカメラを当てた
El interés del hablante es Aさん y/o la cámara.
El oyente imagina  que el hablante menciona como tanto suerte que tiene A san en siguiente frase o que mencione el detalle del premio.


----------



## Bradgiarco

Hello,

_(Spanish translation below)
_
Thanks to everybody for your efforts. As Contrafibularity suggested, it's a bit difficult to draw a general conclusion on the matter. It's true that, gramatically speaking, I'm pretty confused by these kind of structures. Following the _universal_ grammatical concepts of _subject_ and _direct_ _object_, I do not understand the grammar beyond these sentences.

I won a camera. It is me who performs the action of winning, so the subject is _I, _and the object that receives the action of the verb (in this case, the object that is won) is the camera, so it is a direct object of the transitive verb win. To me an intransitive version of this sentence makes no sense at all. I assume the subject in japanese, in case of using the intransitive verb, is the camera (が is acting as a subject marker), which is even more baffling to me (the camera is winning itself, at the same time that it's me who wins it?)

However, going over it, I was able to think of two examples in my own language where the subject of the sentence does not make sense to me (nor to the people I have asked). So I guess it's pointless to try to go deeper on it.

Thanks again to everybody!



_Gracias a todos por vuestro esfuerzo. Como Contrafibularity sugería, es un poco complicado llegar a una conclusión general sobre el asunto. Es cierto que, gramaticalmente hablando, estoy bastante confundido por estas construcciones. Siguiendo los conceptos _universales_ de _sujeto _y _complemento directo, _no entiendo la gramática que hay detrás de estas oraciones.

Yo gané una cámara. Soy yo quien realiza la acción de ganar, así que el sujeto es _yo_, y el objeto que recibe la acción del verbo (en este caso, el objeto que es ganado) es la cámara, así que es complemento directo del verbo transitivo ganar. Para mí, una versión intransitiva de esta oración no tiene ningún sentido. Asumo que el sujeto de esta frase en japonés, en caso de usar el verbo intransitivo, es la cámara (が actúa como indicador de sujeto), lo que es todavía más desconcertante (¿la cámara se gana a si misma al mismo tiempo que yo la gano?).

Sin embargo, dándole vueltas, fui capaz de pensar dos ejemplos en mi propio idioma donde el sujeto de la oración tampoco tenía sentido para mí (ni para la gente a la que he preguntado). Así que supongo que no tiene sentido intentar profundizar en el asunto.

¡Gracias a todos otra vez!_


----------



## 森人さん

I won the camera. The camera was won by me. I hit the target. The target was hit by me. Look at the sentences from this perspective! The verbs would change accordingly.


----------



## frequency

Bradgiarco said:


> To me an intransitive version of this sentence makes no sense at all.


We use intransitive very often.

The sun melts the ice.
The ice melts.

What the sentence カメラが当たる is doing is similar to the second one.
Japanese/Grammar/Transitivity

http://www.mlcjapanese.co.jp/Download/ViVt.pdf


----------



## Contrafibularity

Bradgiarco said:


> I won a camera. It is me who performs the action of winning, so the subject is _I, _and the object that receives the action of the verb (in this case, the object that is won) is the camera, so it is a direct object of the transitive verb win.


You seem to think this is straightforward enough, but it is not to me.  What exactly does "the action of winning" consist of here?  Buying a lottery ticket?  Is it sufficiently an action of winning?  There seems to be a wide gap between buying a lottery ticket and actually winning a prize.  Winning a photo competition is fine.  Winning a scholarship and winning a championship are fine.  All these involve much effort and hard work, so "winning" sounds appropriate.  I would use transitive verbs here in Japanese.  But winning a lottery is not exactly your doing, it is sheer lack or providence.  If I spend much time, money or thought on buying the ticket, I would use the transitive 当てた, but otherwise I would most likely say 当たった as if the camera came to me on its own by some agency beyond my knowledge.   

(Note that I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong.  I just find it fun to discover some discrepancy between languages and think about it.)


----------



## Bradgiarco

Thanks a lot to everybody!

@frequency: yes, I see your point. However, in the case of the ice it's quite similar to English (and Spanish), so it's easy for me to understand the reasonig beyond that. 

@Contrafibularity: I totally agree with you; languages that have the same grammar structures sometimes "apply" them or "interpret" them in different ways. I understand your reasoning too! (A bit more difficult to understand with the case of 見える, but in fact, in Spanish we can make this sentence intransitive too! ;-) ). 

Again, thanks everybody for your time. A pleasure, as always.


----------



## frequency

Bradgiarco said:


> yes, I see your point. However, in the case of the ice it's quite similar to English (and Spanish), so it's easy for me to understand the reasonig beyond that.


Remember that the language you're dealing with in your OP is Japanese.


----------

