74283
**Note from the OP: The original phrasing of the question was very unclear so,
after thinking this over a few times, I decided to rewrite this completely.
Please see[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/83467/can-
intransitive-verbs-be-used-in-a-transitive-way-with-abstract-objects) for the
new question**

In other words, is it ever acceptable to use the を particle with an
intransitive verb? (**other than in the exception mentioned below)

For example, the verb "to run" is usually an intransitive verb (just like the
verbs walk, sleep, jump, grow, etc.), but it has a direct object in the phrase
"run a marathon" or "run a race".

So, in Japanese would it be correct to say 「マラソンを走る」 or should one say
「マラソンが走る」 or「マラソンで走る」 or something else?

There are other examples which (in English) might not be technically correct
but could be used in casual speech, for example "to jump a jumping jack" (vs.
"to do a jumping jack")

In Japanese, would, for example 「ジャンピングジャックを跳ねる」 (as opposed to
「ジャンピングジャックをする」) be acceptable in casual speech or would it sound extremely
unnatural?

**I know that there is a different meaning of を, where it doesn't indicated
direct object but functions similarly to に or で, for example:

公園を走る ~ run around in the park.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-04T19:31:04.603
74253
2021-01-05T03:39:16.523
2021-01-05T03:39:16.523
36778
36778
question
grammar particle-を transitivity
Can one ever use an intransitive verb as a transitive verb?
If you are simply trying to have an object with an intransitive verb, the
answer is no. Intransitive verbs do not take on direct objects, and therefore
will never be used in conjunction with を marking the direct object.

Using を with intransitive verbs will most definitely sound unnatural. I got
called out on it a lot as I was learning.

You can, however, use を to indicate a space traversed, or a location to pass.
を is not exclusively limited to only one function. You can learn more about
other functions [here](https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-grammar/objects-of-
japanese-verbs-with-particles-o-ni-and-to/).

> So, in Japanese would it be correct to say 「マラソンを走る」 or should one say
> 「マラソンが走る」 or something else?

In this case, it is actually 「マラソンを走る」. This is because を is not actually
marking a direct object. The marathon in this sentence is not the object you
can do things to, but rather a measured distance. We can consider it a space
to be traversed. As you have noted, 公園を走る is grammatically correct. You can
also use it to indicate other places or distances you've run. This is the same
function for を marking a space to be traversed or a location passed.

「マラソンが走る」 is not grammatically correct. In literal translation, it's something
to the effect of "The marathon is running (using its legs)." It doesn't work,
because marathons aren't nouns that can do actions.

「マラソンで走る」is also not grammatically correct. で [has several
uses](https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-grammar/particle-de-expressing-
supplementary-information/) including marking the place of an action or the
means an action is done. In this case, the noun marathon is not a place, and
it is not a means of running (though 道 (path) would be). The other uses for で
wouldn't really fit here either.

> In Japanese, would, for example 「ジャンピングジャックを跳ねる」 (as opposed to
> 「ジャンピングジャックをする」) be acceptable in casual speech or would it sound extremely
> unnatural?

「ジャンピングジャックを跳ねる」Would be an unnatural phrase for two reasons. 1) Using an
object with an intransitive verb is not grammatically correct. 2)
[跳ねる](https://jisho.org/word/%E8%B7%B3%E3%81%AD%E3%82%8B) tends to be more
prancey and frolicsome. Jumping jacks aren't prancey or frolicsome, so it
would sound a little strange. I must admit that someone frolicking or prancing
doing jumping jacks would rather amusing to watch though.

I think it is best to stick with「ジャンピングジャックをする」to avoid being potentially
confusing.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-04T19:59:34.887
74254
2020-02-04T21:03:35.673
2020-02-04T21:03:35.673
22352
22352
74253
answer
The post by ajsmart makes some good points.

I'd like to add to that, since I also note that there's a key difference in
terminology here that may be causing confusion.

### English transitive / intransitive

In English, a transitive verb must take an object, and an intransitive verb
must not take an object. Also, transitivity is usually described in terms of
**syntax** -- the structure of a particular sentence. A verb that has a direct
object in the sentence is _transitive_ , and a verb that has no direct object
in that sentence is _intransitive_.

  * An English intransitive verb appears in the sentence _"I eat"_. The verb _"eat"_ here is an intransitive verb, without an object.

  * In contrast, an English transitive verb appears in the sentence _"I eat an apple"_. Here, the verb _"eat"_ is a transitive verb, with _"an apple"_ as its direct object.

### Japanese "transitive" / "intransitive"

In Japanese, the Japanese term most often used as a rough equivalent for
_"transitive"_ is 他動詞【たどうし】, and for _"intransitive"_ it's 自動詞【じどうし】. However,
the Japanese terms describe not the **syntax** of how a verb is used in any
given sentence, but rather the **semantics** of what a verb means inherently.
That's why I put "transitive" and "intransitive" in quotes in the header here
-- these are not quite the correct words to use for Japanese, strictly
speaking: a verb is a 自動詞 or a 他動詞 regardless of whether an object is included
in the sentence.

  * A Japanese "intransitive" verb is described as a 自動詞【じどうし】, or literally a 自【じ】 "self" 動【どう】 "acting" 詞【し】 "word". The action of a 自動詞 primarily affects the **agent** of the verb, the person or thing doing the verb. 

  * In contrast, a Japanese "transitive" verb is described as a 他動詞【たどうし】, or literally a 他【た】 "other" 動【どう】 "acting" 詞【し】 "word". The action of a 他動詞 primarily affects something _other_ than the agent of the verb.

### Object marking with を

Given the difference in how verbs are described, it can catch English speakers
a bit off-guard when they first encounter sentences like 道【みち】を行【い】く, where
the "intransitive" verb 行【い】く suddenly has a direct object. The agent of the
verb is the one affected by the action of 行【い】く, which is why this is
described in Japanese as a 自動詞【じどうし】. But we can still talk about the "where"
of the action, which is how this を is used. The 道【みち】 in some ways is a kind
of object, conceptually speaking, only in English, we would need to use
locational prepositions to make this grammatical, as in "﻿ _[I] go **on** the
street"_ or _"﻿[I] go **along** the street"_.

Meanwhile, we must also note that the verb in 彼【かれ】は食【た】べる is still a
他動詞【たどうし】 even without an explicitly mentioned object, since the action of the
verb happens to something other than the agent.

* * *
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-04T20:37:41.237
74255
2020-02-04T20:37:41.237
5229
74253
answer
Intransitive verbs can never be used with を, **except** for expressions like
「公園を歩く」, and at least **one other exception** , that of the **abstract
object** , also known as [**cognate
objects**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate_object) in linguistics.

In general, there are cases where a semantically intransitive verb (e.g. to
live, to die, to exist, to sleep) can take an "abstract object". In English,
for example, this occurs in the expression

> "to **die** a painful **death** ",

where the abstract concept "painful death" is the object of the usually-
intransitive verb "to die". These are called [cognate
objects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate_object) since the object is
etymologically related to the verb.

In Japanese, it seems that cognate objects are more rare that in other
languages like English, but examples do exist.

At least, it seems that the phrase「死を死ぬ」exists, even though 死ぬ is an
intransitive verb. For example, there is a song with the title

> [「俺は俺の死を死にたい」](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iAAwsYylaI)
>
> "I want to die my death"

Another example is 「人生を生きる」"to live life"

In the song "Aruite ikou" by
[Ikimonogakari](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikimonogakari), there is the
line

> 僕は「今」を生きていくよ
>
> I'm going to go live "the present"

Or more idiomatically, "I'm going to live in the present"

Note that not some cognate objects are merely normal objects of transitive
verbs. For example in "to sing a song" or 「歌を歌う」, both "song" and 「歌」are
cognates of their respective verbs, but "sing" is a transitive verb.

Conversely there are cases where an intransitive verb takes an abstract object
that is **not cognate** to the verb, such as 「人生を生きる」

(So **" abstract object"** is the more appropriate terminology but I'm not
sure if there is a proper linguistic term for that.)
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-06T20:06:11.700
74283
2021-01-03T18:09:59.410
2021-01-03T18:09:59.410
36778
36778
74253
answer