Linguistic Rant.
This Japanese grammar book is driving me insane. It's taking so long to explain what transitive/intransitive verbs are (also apparently no Western languages have transitive/intransitive verb differences. Um. I believe Finnish does? In fact, I believe English does. That's right, all 'western' languages are all the same) that I'm wondering if the author knows what they are? This whole chapter is like a train of thought. Like they think of another way to explain it 'Oh by the way here's another way to think of transitive vs intransitive verbs! It's like a passive! Only not, because we are going to learn those later and truly screw you up if you go around thinking that intransitive = passive. If you didn't get what intransitive/transitive verbs were already, because they are are SO HARD to master! I'm going to say this repeatedly until you believe it!'
He runs. -> no direct object = intransitive.
He eats an apple. -> direct object = transitive.
It's not fucking rocket science.
/end rant.
Here's an example of how complicated this person is making t/it verbs sound:
It might be useful for you to know that, in Japanese, the word that names transitive verbs is 他動詞 (他: other, 動詞: verb), literally "verb whose action is performed by some other subject."
The meaning of the transitive verb we see in this example, 決める, is 'to decide'. Since it's a transitive verb, it requires "another" subject (it's omitted, but it would be "I") to perform the action indicated by the verb (to decide) on a direct object (here, 名前, name). Therefore, 私は名前を決める means 'I decide the name'.
Now, wouldn't it have been easier to say 'in 名前を決める', even though the subject 私 (I) is omitted, the direct object (which we know is marked by を) is '名前’ meaning that the transitive 決める is used.
Also what is this 'other subject' nonsense? It's probably saying that it needs some 'other' thing (ie. a direct object) other than just a subject. Not another subject. WTF is another subject anyway? 名前 is an object, not a subject. ARGH.
If they wanted to get into the etymology of 'transitive verb' in Japanese, it would've been easier to explain 自動詞 (intransitive verb) which has the part 'self' in it, probably meaning that it functions by itself WITHOUT A DIRECT OBJECT.
ARRRR. Who wrote this? I want to punch him in the face.
He runs. -> no direct object = intransitive.
He eats an apple. -> direct object = transitive.
It's not fucking rocket science.
/end rant.
Here's an example of how complicated this person is making t/it verbs sound:
It might be useful for you to know that, in Japanese, the word that names transitive verbs is 他動詞 (他: other, 動詞: verb), literally "verb whose action is performed by some other subject."
The meaning of the transitive verb we see in this example, 決める, is 'to decide'. Since it's a transitive verb, it requires "another" subject (it's omitted, but it would be "I") to perform the action indicated by the verb (to decide) on a direct object (here, 名前, name). Therefore, 私は名前を決める means 'I decide the name'.
Now, wouldn't it have been easier to say 'in 名前を決める', even though the subject 私 (I) is omitted, the direct object (which we know is marked by を) is '名前’ meaning that the transitive 決める is used.
Also what is this 'other subject' nonsense? It's probably saying that it needs some 'other' thing (ie. a direct object) other than just a subject. Not another subject. WTF is another subject anyway? 名前 is an object, not a subject. ARGH.
If they wanted to get into the etymology of 'transitive verb' in Japanese, it would've been easier to explain 自動詞 (intransitive verb) which has the part 'self' in it, probably meaning that it functions by itself WITHOUT A DIRECT OBJECT.
ARRRR. Who wrote this? I want to punch him in the face.