2645
i was taught that verbs are either transitive or intransitive.

but what kind of verb is 分かる ?

[WWWJDIC lists it as intransitive.](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-
bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E3%82%8F%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8B)

Yet the replies/comments from this thread [Why is it 日本語がわかります instead of
日本語をわかります?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2505/why-is-it-
nihongo-ga-wakarimasu-instead-of?newsletter=1&nlcode=6357|e104) argues that を
can be used with 分かる.

so is 分かる both a transitive verb _and_ an intransitive verb at the same time?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-14T02:38:50.903
2636
2018-07-10T12:01:22.947
2017-04-13T12:43:44.863
-1
264
question
grammar verbs transitivity
Are there verbs that are neither intransitive nor transitive?
A general answer: The definition of intransitive is the negation of
transitive. Logically, a verb is either intransitive or transitive; there is
no other possibility. You may say that a verb becomes either of them depending
on its usage, but a verb is never "neither intransitive nor transitive".

In this particular case, `を` is not allowed in the kind of construction
mentioned in standard way of speaking. If you actually see it, then it is
either wrong, or the speaker has a different lexical entry for the verb. These
are called idiolect. Simply put, those people are speaking a "different
language". In that case, you can say that the verb in question is either
intransitive or transitive depending on the idiolect.

To answer Lukman's question: Many transitive verbs can be used intransitively
with a specifically implied object. For example, Japanese `飲む` or English
`drink` is a transitive verb:

> ジュースを飲んだ。  
>  I drank juice.

But you can turn it into an intransitive verb by omitting the object and
implying a specific object, in this case 'alcohol':

> 昨日は朝まで飲んだ。  
>  I drank overnight yesterday.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-14T03:21:10.717
2637
2011-08-14T03:51:21.123
2011-08-14T03:51:21.123
2636
answer
So, we have two classes of verbs, 自動詞 and 他動詞, the so-called intransitive and
transitive.

The problem lies in the absence of mapping between the grammatical notions in
both languages. I believe that you can be transitive _and_ 自動詞. The only
difference is that the particle used for the object will be が instead of を.

For me, the verb 分かる is a transitive 自動詞, the verb 開く is an intransitive 自動詞,
and the verb 食べる is a transitive 他動詞. I can't think of any intransitive 他動詞.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-14T07:05:37.473
2641
2011-08-14T07:05:37.473
356
2636
answer
> i was taught that verbs are either transitive or intransitive.

That is unfortunate, because the claim is misleading as long as Japanese is
concerned.

Unlike English, Japanese does not have a strict distinction between transitive
and intransitive verbs. Although some people categorize the verbs which can be
used with ～を as transitive verbs and the other verbs as intransitive verbs, ～を
is just one of the modifiers of a verb in the same way as ～に and ～から, and
these modifiers are optional.

  * ケーキが冷蔵庫に入っているけど、食べないでね。 There is a cake in the fridge, but do not eat it.
  * 昨日は朝まで飲んだ。 I drank overnight yesterday. (From sawa’s answer)

In these sentences, are 食べる and 飲む transitive verbs with ～を modifiers omitted,
or intransitive verbs? I cannot see any point distinguishing these two.

So in Japanese, classifying all verbs to either transitive and intransitive
does not have much use.

What is useful is the transitive-intransitive correspondence such as 動かす and
動く. Note that even in this case, 動かす can be used without an ～を modifier.

わかる usually takes ～が when specifying what is understood, but ～を is also used
in some contexts, as stated in the page which you linked to. One can describe
this as “わかる is usually used as an intransitive verb, but can sometimes also
be used as a transitive verb,” but I do not think that this explanation makes
the situation any easier to understand.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-14T12:24:08.550
2645
2011-08-14T19:08:14.190
2011-08-14T19:08:14.190
15
15
2636
answer
The following analysis is a paraphrase of the discussion in "Japanese: A
linguistic introduction", Hasegawa, 2015

One can consider three classes of predicates when it comes to transitivity.
One class is verbs that come in clear transitive / intransitive pairs:

ミドリが扉を開けた。 midori opened the door.

扉が開いた。 the door opened.

in these pairs, the patient (the noun that something happens to) is marked by
を with the transitive verb, (it is marked as the object of the sentence), and
が with the intransitive verb, (it is marked as the subject of the sentence).
This is the vast majority of Japanese verbs. Note that even if the が marked NP
is omitted from a sentence containing a transitive verb it is still understood
to be there.

ビールを飲んだ。 X drank the beer. / NOT: the beer was drunk.

There is also a small class of verbs that, like most english verbs, can be
used transitively or intransitively:

ミドリが扉を開いた。 midori opened the door.

扉が開いた。 the door opened.

(note this verb is not aku /akeru, but hiraku and is in the same form in both
the above sentences)

The third situation (the one that 分かる) falls under, is the situation of low
transitivity. This is the situation in which the patient is not really
affected by the action (the analysis is more complicated than that, they list
10 things that affect transitivity, but thats the main thing). So the answer
to your question is that different Japanese linguists have analyzed the
situations differently.

One camp says that が absolutely marks the subject of any sentence so a
sentence like:

日本語が分かる。 = Japanese (subject) is understandable.

This analysis is compelling because it keeps the particle usage consistent (が
marks subject). But that would mean that 分かる would behave like an intransitive
verb (not taking an object in its normal usage). But the problem with this is
as you have noted, there are times that 分かる does take を, and additionally,
most people's perception is that "to understand" is a transitive action, i.e.
There is an "agent" "understanding" something.

Others (most notably Kuno "The structure of the Japanese Language", 1973) have
argued that in "日本語が分かる", が marks the direct object. He goes on to argue that
a certain class of predicates (sensory perception, want-to-do verbs, can-do-
verbs) can mark their object with が instead of を. This interpretation analyzes
分かる as a transitive verb, but one that has a non-standard particle usage
(marking it's object with が). The advantage of this analysis is that it
maintains our perception of the transitivity of "to understand", it also
accounts for the ability of the verb to mark it's object in the "normal" way
in addition to が.

Both analyses have their advantages and disadvantages.

Hasegawa argues that the core issue is the perceived (by the speaker)
transitivity of these verbs. The lower the transitivity, the more likely their
"object" (in the Kuno analysis) is to be marked by が.

As an example she offers the following:

わたしは ビール が/を 飲みたい。 I want to drink beer.

わたしは 部長 が/を 殺したい。 I want to kill (my) section chief.

She says that most native speakers would prefer が in the first case, but in
the case of a very highly transitive verb (to kill), the preference for を
marking increases and that most native speakers would prefer を in the second
sentence.

It is important to note though that what is going on here is that there are
some verbs (sensory perception, want to, can do, to say, to meet) that don't
fit neatly into the transitive/intransitive framework. All these verbs share
the characteristic of being "low transitivity".

What is absolutely not true, though, is the notion that transitivity is not a
semantic feature of Japanese. The transitive / intransitive distinction is
taught in 国語文法 (the school grammar that Japanese kids are taught).
Additionally, Old Japanese is analyzed as having transitivity (and
transitivity reversing) morphemes as part of the verb structure (that is why
the transitive/intransitive pairs follow patterns). And those transitivity
distinctions have been traced through the language to middle japanese, then
late, then modern, to arrive at the currently used verb forms.

Japanese kids are taught about transitivity using the same trick that they
teach english speaking kids. "can you ask the question 何を?".

Even with pro-drop, if some one says:

わたしは 飲みました。

you can ask:

何を飲みました？。

not stating objects doesn't change the valence of the verb. It is still
understood to have an object (i.e. you can ask about it).

By the same token the sentence:

何を開いた？

would be rejected by native speakers as being ungrammatical.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-10T10:56:33.070
59999
2018-07-10T12:01:22.947
2018-07-10T12:01:22.947
30558
30558
2636
answer