[Grammar] Is this a transitive verb? You’re wanted on the phone.

[HeartShape]

Hi,

Is this a transitive verb, and if yes, why and how?

"Harry! You’re wanted on the phone."

 

[HeartShape]

If Harry is wanted, somebody wants him. 'Want' is transitive.

So the direct object is left out. If we were to include it to emphasize understanding then the sentence could be like this:

You're wanted (Harry), on the phone.

(Somebody wants him/Harry)

And Harry in the sentence is the implied direct object.

 

[HeartShape]

The direct object of an active sentence become the subject of a passive sentence. This change of function does not affect the transitivity of the verb.

So what you are saying is if we have the following sentence they are still transitive? Would it also be correct to say they can be intransitive?

1. Harry is wanted on the phone by Zombie
2. Harry was wanted by Zombie

 

[HeartShape]

No.

So that means it's not an ergative verb then.

I guess the idea of transitive only works with certain verbs, and want is one of them.

But in this example below is "by Zombie" (a direct object) a noun phrase or a preposition? I'm guessing it's still a preposition?

1. Harry was wanted by Zombie.

 

[Phaedrus]

So that means it's not an ergative verb then.

You seem to be confusing ergative constructions with passive constructions, HeartShape. They're different:

(1a) Harry broke the vase.
(1b) The vase was broken (by Harry).
(2) The vase broke.

Sentence (1a) is in the active voice, sentence (1b) is in the passive voice, and sentence (2) is an ergative construction. In both (1b) and (2), the direct object of the active-voice sentence is the subject of the sentence. However, if you look really closely at (1b), you will see two features that (2) lacks. First, there is an extra word in the verb group: "was." Second, the past participle is used: "broken."

In any passive construction, there will be those two features: a passive auxiliary (which is traditionally a form of the verb "be" -- some people would include "get") and the past-participle form of the verb. In many cases, as with "want," the past participle ("wanted") and the past tense ("wanted") are the same. But, with other verbs, such as "break," they are not the same: "broke" (past tense); "broken" (past participle).

Passive-voice constructions are often analyzed as transformations of the corresponding active-voice constructions. According to this way of looking at things, (1b) may be said to derive from (1a). But even if one wishes to pretend that there is no syntactic relationship between the two, any native speaker can grasp the fact that (1b), even without the agent "by"-phrase, expresses that the vase has been acted upon.

The ergative construction ("The vase broke") does not have that meaning. While one can reason things through and realize that if the vase broke something or someone must have caused it to break, the sentence itself does not express that. There is the sense that it spontaneously came apart. That is why ergative constructions are convenient when one wishes to avoid assigning or implying responsibility for an event.

Note, too, that the ergative construction does not use the past participle ("broken"), and, more importantly, does not contain the passive auxiliary (a form of "be," such as "was"). I say "more importantly" because the past participle of an ergative verb can, of course, be used in ergative constructions: "The vase has/had broken." Contrast that with the passive: "The voice has/had BEEN broken (by someone)."

Ergative verbs are few and far between. "Want" is not an ergative verb. Your sentences aren't ergative constructions. They are passive constructions, as Piscean has been explaining to you. The fact that the thing affected by the transitive verb (the patient or theme of "wanted," as some would say) is the subject of the sentence does not mean that the verb is intransitive. All passive sentences have transitive verbs.

(3a) active: Uncle Sam wants you.
(3b) passive: You ARE wanted (by Uncle Sam).
(4) ergative: *[strike]You want.[/strike]

 

[HeartShape]

You seem to be confusing ergative constructions with passive constructions, HeartShape. They're different:

(1a) Harry broke the vase.
(1b) The vase was broken (by Harry).
(2) The vase broke.

Sentence (1a) is in the active voice, sentence (1b) is in the passive voice, and sentence (2) is an ergative construction. In both (1b) and (2), the direct object of the active-voice sentence is the subject of the sentence. However, if you look really closely at (1b), you will see two features that (2) lacks. First, there is an extra word in the verb group: "was." Second, the past participle is used: "broken."

In any passive construction, there will be those two features: a passive auxiliary (which is traditionally a form of the verb "be" -- some people would include "get") and the past-participle form of the verb. In many cases, as with "want," the past participle ("wanted") and the past tense ("wanted") are the same. But, with other verbs, such as "break," they are not the same: "broke" (past tense); "broken" (past participle).

Passive-voice constructions are often analyzed as transformations of the corresponding active-voice constructions. According to this way of looking at things, (1b) may be said to derive from (1a). But even if one wishes to pretend that there is no syntactic relationship between the two, any native speaker can grasp the fact that (1b), even without the agent "by"-phrase, expresses that the vase has been acted upon.

The ergative construction ("The vase broke") does not have that meaning. While one can reason things through and realize that if the vase broke something or someone must have caused it to break, the sentence itself does not express that. There is the sense that it spontaneously came apart. That is why ergative constructions are convenient when one wishes to avoid assigning or implying responsibility for an event.

Note, too, that the ergative construction does not use the past participle ("broken"), and, more importantly, does not contain the passive auxiliary (a form of "be," such as "was"). I say "more importantly" because the past participle of an ergative verb can, of course, be used in ergative constructions: "The vase has/had broken." Contrast that with the passive: "The voice has/had BEEN broken (by someone)."

Ergative verbs are few and far between. "Want" is not an ergative verb. Your sentences aren't ergative constructions. They are passive constructions, as Piscean has been explaining to you. The fact that the thing affected by the transitive verb (the patient or theme of "wanted," as some would say) is the subject of the sentence does not mean that the verb is intransitive. All passive sentences have transitive verbs.

(3a) active: Uncle Sam wants you.
(3b) passive: You ARE wanted (by Uncle Sam).
(4) ergative: *[strike]You want.[/strike]

Thanks. I thought there was something wrong. I think the confusion started when I read, "The direct object of an active sentence become the subject of a passive sentence. This change of function does not affect the transitivity of the verb."

I re-arranged the sentence from active to passive:

1. You're wanted (Harry), on the phone = transitive active
2. Harry was wanted by Zombie = transitive passive

When it was said the transitive active becomes the subject in transitive passive I thought Piscean was implying that the transitive passive also have a direct object because Piscean said "change of function does not affect the transitivity". Since I have now changed the verb functions to transitive passive I thought the function of the transitive active carried over to the transitive passive in sentence in 2.

Usually, when we want to change something from transitive active to transitive passive the direct object becomes the subject in transitive passive and we also have to modify the verbs to passive tense such as "was wanted". I know it was very confusing hence why I asked about the preposition at the end.

Now, what I think what Piscean mean was that the transitive active always have a transitive passive by switching direct object (Harry) of transitive active to subject which becomes transitive passive because the transitive active and transitive passive always have this relationship with each other.