#transitive

[languagestudymaterials]

Japanese transitive and intransitive verbs

A semi-complete guide

Table of contents:

Before we dive in (the major differences between the Japanese and English concepts of (in)transitive verbs.

Overview of English (in)transitive verbs

Japanese (in)transitive verbs – basics

Characteristic features of transitive verbs

Characteristic features of intransitive verbs

Intransitive verbs vs passive voice 

Translation problems 

This #japanese grammar post is going to be full of proper linguistic discourse. Don't shy away from it, though. I'm sure it will shed new light on the topic.  Transitive and intransitive verbs seem to be easy to grasp at the beginning. The explanations are rather straightforward, and the examples are understandable.

However, as you advance with your studies, you realize that this basic knowledge you learned at the beginning isn't enough anymore. You start encountering new transitive-intransitive verb pairs, and it turns out that the potential form is also regarded as 'intransitive verbs', the English translations use completely different grammar points because there are no equivalents, there are nuances that only Japanese intransitive verbs can convey, etc.  

This post will cover the basics we all know (English and Japanese), but also concepts that helped me understand how these verbs really work and why they should be discussed in more detail. 

Before we dive in

Japanese grammar books (not textbooks, proper grammar books) tend to discuss this notion from a different perspective than English grammar books. English grammar books usually explain this concept in relation to the syntax of a sentence. Japanese grammar books focus more on the semantics (meaning) of a verb; the syntax doesn't matter that much.  Stefan Kaiser in his books writes:

Japanese uses a large number of transitive and intransitive verb pairs. When a transitive verb is used, the implication is that the subject is responsible for the action of the verb, but the corresponding intransitive verb implies that something happens for which nobody is overly responsible or to be blamed (p.674). 

Simple, right? Besides, this is what we learn from our textbooks and other online sources. Stefan Kaiser also points out that 

[...] differences in point of view are seen in the way things are expressed, for instance, when English uses expressions such as 'they catch the offender' [active voice] or 'the offender gets caught' [passive voice], Japanese uses neither the active/transitive, nor the passive, but the intransitive (p.674).

This observation is further proved by the following example:

犯人は早く捕まってくれないと不安です。 (捕まる = intransitive verb)  If the culprit doesn't get caught soon, I'll be worried.  (get caught = passive voice) 

I'm pretty sure, many learners would use 捕まえる (transitive) in its passive form to translate the English sentence into Japanese. I know I would do it. Or, I wouldn't even consider the verb's transitivity. I'd choose the first verb from the list and make it passive.

From my understanding, the Japanese language 'decided' that there are also cases where things aren't exactly actively or passively done by someone (active vs. passive voice). There's this state between those two grammars that is captured by the Japanese intransitive verbs.  

Note: Intransitive verbs are often referred to as mediopassive verbs.  

In English, transitive verbs require an object. In Japanese, though, you can use verbs as stand-alone words; no need for an object.

Consider these sentences:  

Do you have a dog? (Transitive verb = have; Object = a dog)  

This is a perfectly correct sentence in English. There's a subject, a verb, and an object (SVO).  Now, imagine saying this sentence in a context. Someone randomly asks you:

Do you have a dog?

And you want to confirm that you are a dog owner. You want to use a full sentence (not just Yes, I do). You say: 

Yes, I have a dog. (Transitive verb = have; Object = a dog [it])  

Can't you just say: Yes, I have? Why include the object, while from the context it's clear that you have a dog (and not a parrot)? Because the syntax of an English sentence requires you to use verb + object combination. That's how it is. The syntax of an English sentence is rigid, you can't just randomly omit words.  

Many Polish and Japanese speakers make that mistake. They omit objects in their English sentences because their native languages allow them to do so. When I ask my Polish students: Do you have your homework? They usually answer: Yes, I have. It's an understandable answer, but grammatically incorrect.  

Conclusion: English transitive verbs must have an object.  What about Japanese, then? Let's consider the same question and answer: Do you have a dog? I have it. 

犬を飼っていますか？(Transitive verb = 飼う; object = 犬) はい、飼っています。 

As you can see, the answer doesn't include 犬 (いぬ) Why? Because the syntax of a Japanese sentence is more flexible (unlike in English), and using verbs without their objects is totally acceptable. It's clear from the context that we're talking about a dog, no need to include that information in every sentence.  Conclusion? As long as the object is clear from the context, you don't need to attach it to your verbs. 

Okay, now that we know that both languages consider this grammar from two different perspectives, we can move on to more details.  

Overview of English (in)transitive verbs

These features helped me realize why I struggle with learning Japanese transitive and intransitive verbs.

(1) Verbs in English can be transitive and intransitive at the same time, and there is no change in the spelling. These verbs are called ambitransitive.

I stopped the car. (transitive) The car stopped. (intransitive)

(2) Students know how to use them intuitively (in most cases). Since the verb form doesn't change, there is no problem. 

(3) The sentence structure will tell you if there is an active doer. Who stopped the car? I did; I'm the active doer. If there's an active doer, the verb is transitive. 

(4) Transitive verbs can be used in the passive voice. 

(5) Intransitive verbs cannot be used in the passive voice. 

(6) Some types of verbs are never transitive (be, seem, snow, thunder, sleep, dream, etc.) 

(6) Changing the verb tense (Present Simple ⇒ Present Continuous) won't change the meaning of the (in)transitive verb or its role in the sentence.

(7) Transitive verbs can take direct and indirect objects.

(8) Intransitive verbs include information such as when, where, and how I performed the action.

Now, on the "good" stuff!

Japanese (in)transitive verbs – basics

Let's start with the information will all are familiar with.  

Verbs in Japanese come in pairs, that is transitive and intransitive pairs. Transitive verbs take the particle を and intransitive verbs the particle が. 

Transitive verbs are used when there must be an active doer; a person performing the action.

Intransitive verbs, though, when action can happen without anyone's involvement. 

Verbs of movement are intransitive, but they take the particle を (and other particles too).

Since there are actions that can happen on their own and at the same time someone can cause them to happen, we ended up having multiple verb pairs to show this distinction. 

Consider these classic examples:

ドアを開ける ドアが開く

The first sentence tells us that a person is performing the action, and the second one that the door just opens by itself; we don't know if someone caused this action.

Notice that the verb ending changes from ける to く, unlike in English (in English, it is just 'open' for both sentences).

This example shows us that the concept is pretty simple to grasp. The only obstacle is that you need to memorize twice as many verbs as in English (unless you have some ultra language instincts and intuition that will help you come up with a (in)transitive verb pair without looking it up in a dictionary). 

Another obstacle (totally subjective, though) might be that while translating from English to Japanese, you will be forever confused as to which verb you should use in Japanese. After all, in English, the verb forms don't change, and you don't need to actively consider if someone is performing the action, or if the action happens by itself; you just say what you want to say, and most of the time you'll be correct. In other words, you learn the word 'open' and you can start using it without thinking much about its transitivity. 

Characteristic features of transitive verbs

(1) There are transitive verbs which have an intransitive pair: 

始める(t) / 始まる (in) 残す (t) / 残る (in) 切る (t) / 切れる (in)  

(2) Some verbs are transitive and intransitive at the same time (噴く)

(3) Some verbs are transitive, and they don't have their intransitive pairs (食べる).

(4) Transitive verbs tell us that we are performing an action on a given object. We do sth to it/with it.

(5) Transitive verbs can be changed to passive voice.

(6) Transitive verbs, which have an intransitive verb pair, can be used to talk about cause and effect. Cause – transitive; effect – intransitive. I opened the window = cause; The window is open = effect.  

Characteristic features of intransitive verbs

(1) Verbs of movement in Japanese (go, walk, run, leave, etc.) are intransitive, but they take the particle を (and others). The particle will be translated to across, through, toward, around, etc. We do not affect the thing itself (transitive verbs show this nuance). When I walk through the park, my walk doesn't change the structure of the park. It's more about performing movement against the place (leaving the place, or arriving at the place). 

(2) Intransitive verbs describe states (the door is open = state). 

(3) Intransitive verbs cannot be changed to passive voice unless we want to use passive voice to express the "I'm the victim here" nuance or when we speak using keigo. 

(4) Intransitive verbs tell us that an action is happening/happens, but it doesn't affect anything directly (things don't get destroyed, change their color, etc). 

(5) Some verbs are only intransitive (for example, those that express natural phenomena, to freeze 凍る). 

(6) Some intransitive verbs have their transitive pairs, but the transitive pairs are used in literary works, in some dialects, or considered archaic ( 凍る [in] / 凍らす[t archaic(?)]). 

(7) Intransitive verbs can be used in their causative form to show that someone was involved in the action (The lake froze vs I froze the lake); 凍る ⇒ 凍らせる. 

Intransitive verbs vs passive voice 

Okay, we already established that intransitive verbs cannot be changed into passive voice. In this section then, we will look at the differences in meaning between transitive verbs in their passive voice and intransitive verbs. After all, transitive verbs in their passive form and intransitive verbs focus on the action (not the doer).

Let's use the classic example of an open door. 

ドアを開ける (active voice; transitive verb) ドアが開けられる (passive voice; transitive verb) ドアが開く(intransitive verb)

To make it more clear, let's add some context to it. There is this job called a door attendant. Their main duty is to greet guests and open the door for them. If we asked them, what their duties are, they could simply say:  I open the door. (active voice) ドアを開ける.

However, they could say the same sentence from a different perspective. The door is opened by me. (passive voice)ドアが私に開けられる. Well, I do agree that to say such a sentence, our door attendant would need a special context, but it is possible.   

So, when do we use the third option that the Japanese language has blessed us with? (ドアが開く)

As we already said, intransitive verbs describe states or actions that happen without anyone's involvement. The third sentence in Japanese means that either:

someone has already performed the action of opening and now the door is open (a state) or

the door opens automatically and our door attendant is redundant.

This sentence can be translated as:

The door opens. (intransitive verb in English).

The door is open. (adjective; this might not be the most obvious translation; however, to make things sound natural in English, we could use an adjective to translate it.)

It is important to remember that when we use transitive verbs in passive voice, we want to convey the nuance of "someone is involved but we don't need to know who." Intransitive verbs, on the other hand, completely ignore this nuance and focus solely on the action. 

Translation problems 

Causative forms

There are cases when Japanese intransitive verbs have their English equivalents (see examples above). However, some Japanese intransitive verbs don't have their equivalents in English, but they need to be somehow translated. Let's consider these examples and their dictionary translations:

[in] 逃 (に) げる to escape    vs      [t]  逃がす to let escape [in] 枯 (か) れる to wither      vs     [t]  枯らす to let wither [in] 落 (お)ちる to fall            vs      [t]  落とす to let fall

English translations have one thing in common, namely the causative verb let. These are not the only ways to translate these transitive verbs into English, but they are fairly common. 

To escape in English is both transitive and intransitive at the same time: 

The boat sank but the crew escaped. (intransitive as there is no object after the verb) We need to escape the jungle. (transitive because there is an object after the verb).

In the previous section, we have (in)transitive verbs that overlap in both languages. They are match pairs, and there shouldn't be many translation problems. The only difference is that Japanese has two words, while English only has one. 

In this case, though, both English sentences will be translated using the intransitive verb in Japanese. Why? Because, as I mentioned at the beginning, it's not about the syntax, it's about the meaning these verbs carry. 

Intransitive verbs in Japanese show us that the action is not directly affecting anything - the crew escaped, but they didn't do anything to the ship; escaping the jungle won't affect the jungle; the jungle will remain as it is after our escape. ボートは沈没したが、乗組員は逃げた。ジャングルから逃げる必要がある。 Well, the second sentence isn't the most natural-sounding one, but it's a literal translation. The second は in the first sentence is to show the contrast. If you are like me, you would look at the English sentences, identify which verb is transitive and which is intransitive, look for the respective pairs in Japanese, and then proceed with the translation. Well, we would be horribly wrong because the transitive verb in Japanese shows that there is someone actively involved in the action, and the object is directly affected by the action. 

To let escape is a causative form. We cause something to happen; we allow something to happen; we give our permission for something to happen.

It's my fault. I let the culprit escape. 私は犯人を逃がした。 

In this sentence, there is a doer of the action (I) and an object (culprit) that got affected by the action. The culprit was imprisoned, and now they are free. The same logic applies to the other two examples (to let wither; to let fall).  

When it comes to translating Japanese verbs into causative forms in English or vice versa, things can get even trickier.  Again, if you're like me, you'd see let in English, think it's a causative verb, and conclude you need to change your Japanese verb to the causative form. You would then look up how to make causative verb forms and proceed with the whole endeavor. 

As it turns out, some verbs in Japanese are inherently causative (examples above), and unlike in English, they already have their own separate verb forms. 

So, there are verb forms that can be changed to causative forms by adding an appropriate ending, but there are verbs that are already causative in their meaning, and adding a causative ending to them would make them double causative, which makes no sense.  

Note: This post will be either updated or I will add a link to my blogger platform where I will discuss this topic in detail.

[feisty-yordle]

[sagasolejma]

If this post gets 80085 notes I will finally stop boymoding in public

[witchhickx]

Mean Girls (2004) House MD (2009)

[batbusiness-schooldropout]

My favorite thing about J. Jonah Jameson is that he just hates Spider-Man. He supports mutants and doesn't hate enhanced people. He's not racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic. He just hates Spider-Man. And I'm half convinced that he's faking for the publicity.

He'd probably get pissed if he hears someone hating on Spider-Man for being enhanced.

"Spiderman isn't a menace because he can climb walls! He's a menace because he's climbing walls without a license or safety equipment! He's setting a bad example!"

"I just want you to know that you that your identity as an enhanced person is valid. Your identity as Spiderman is trash."

[chaoticrei]

Like/reblog if you think that you don't need to medically transition to be transgender

[queerism1969]

[elierlick]

You shouldn’t have to be trans to get any sex characteristic-related surgery. It’s not a limited resource. Plenty of cis men get implants and cis women get breast reductions. From Colby Gordon today and Leslie Feinberg in Transgender Warriors (1996).

[rivetgoth]

It's honestly crazy that discussion around testosterone HRT skews so much towards the beginning stages of it (to the point that you have dozens of guys thinking their transition is "failed" if they don't pass by like a year in lol) and what the initial changes of the first couple of months to years look like, like the classic laundry list of those early basic changes like bottom growth, voice drop, etc, when IMO literally none of that compares remotely to the depth and intensity of the long term total masculinization you start to experience like 3-5+ years in.

[karnalesbian]

she commit acts of intercourse on my erogeneous zones until i achieve sexual climax

[maybeasunflower]

When I see "transitive", I can't help think of equivalence relations (a maths thing), which I know are defined by three properties: they are transitive (A~B and B~C => A~C), reflexive (A~B => B~A), and the other one (A~A is true), but I can't remember the name of the other one.

Then I look up equivalence relations and find the "other one" is actually "reflexive", what I think is called "reflexive" is actually called "symmetric", and it's fine.

if shes your girl then why have i slowly been replacing her parts until there’s nothing left of her original body? is she then still your girl?

[a-thread-of-green]

I've spent the last two weeks speedrunning coming out as a trans woman to my coworkers, extended family, and the assorted friends I'd collected through Facebook and I've been shocked and overwhelmed by how enthusiastically supportive cis women have been in particular. After doomscrolling through TERF shit for the past year, I'd become convinced that cis women tended towards distrust of trans women, with a significant percentage actively vitriolic. But, time and time again, I've received effusive praise from the cis women I come out to. Not just progressive women either: Christian Facebook-moms from Texas have been enormously supportive. I've gotten some support from cis men too, but nothing nearly as passionate, and they've been the source of all the awkward avoidance or disgusted looks I've experienced. It makes complete sense: cis women generally like being women, and most of them like it a lot, so why wouldn't they celebrate somebody else becoming like them? This really drives home how dishonest TERFism is: they present themselves as the voice of women, but really they're just a regressive minority, distorting the issues to lead people away from their inclination towards love and acceptance.

[liberalsarecool]

Spending $150 MILLION to chase down $104K is a wicked level of class warfare.

Just letting fare jumpers go would save hundreds of millions. #ACAB

[yellowyarn]

Actually, the "F" on my passport is for faggot, not female.

[dat-soldier]

anyone else