Quick question about intransitive verbs

[patroclus]

Hello

Let's take nusumu (to steal). I looked it up in Jim Breen's WWWJDIC Server, and it comes as non transitive. Does it mean you can't use "wo" particle??

dareka watashi no saifu wo nusumimashita
(someone stole my wallet)

would this be correct??

 

[KrazyKat]

nusumu is transitive so it requires a direct object. (Or maybe it requires a direct object so it is transitive ) Im not sure where you read that it was intransitive? Your sentance is corret, although it should be dareka ga.

 

[epigene]

Hello
Let's take nusumu (to steal). I looked it up in Jim Breen's WWWJDIC Server, and it comes as non transitive. Does it mean you can't use "wo" particle??
dareka watashi no saifu wo nusumimashita
(someone stole my wallet)
would this be correct??

I also think KrazyKat's suggestion is correct.

To make "nusumu" intransitive, it should be "nusumareru":

Dareka ni watashi no saifu wo nusumaremashita. (My wallet has been stolen by someone.)
("Wo" can still be used.)

 

[Mike Cash]

To make "nusumu" intransitive, it should be "nusumareru":

But is it best to think of that in terms of transitive/intransitive? Or to think of it as being passive?

 

[patroclus]

Dareka ni watashi no saifu wo nusumaremashita. (My wallet has been stolen by someone.)

where is the subject or topic?
I would have said:
Watashi wa dareka ni saifu wo numaremashita

by the way, passive forms are always intransitive??

 

[epigene]

But is it best to think of that in terms of transitive/intransitive? Or to think of it as being passive?

Sorry, Mike! I confused active/passive and transitive/intransitive... :sorry:

I think it's passive. For further info, please consult:
A Logical Japanese Grammar

I can't give a logical presentation of Japanese grammar.

 

[epigene]

Dareka ni watashi no saifu wo nusumaremashita. (My wallet has been stolen by someone.)

where is the subject or topic?
I would have said:
Watashi wa dareka ni saifu wo numaremashita

by the way, passive forms are always intransitive??

The example I gave has "Watashi wa" omitted (as a given because it is evident without saying), which happens very frequently in Japanese. To compensate for this omission, I added "watashi no" to "saifu." Also, "watashi no" can also be omitted if it is already clear in the dialogue.

 

[Elizabeth]

Dareka ni watashi no saifu wo nusumaremashita. (My wallet has been stolen by someone.)
where is the subject or topic?
I would have said:
(Watashi wa) saifu wo numaremashita

You can translate this more specifically as "I had my wallet stolen" and leave out the "dare ka ni" which is not grammatically necessary and too obvious to need mention.

 

[patroclus]

Ok, I got confused by this web, talking about 'affected pasive':

Here, it is said :

*Watashi no saifu wa, nusumareta.
but this would be wrong. Using the above analysis, we see this is
I was (adversely) affected by someone stole/stealing my wallet.
Watashi wa, saifu o nusumareta.

that's why I first thought on:
Watashi wa saifu wo numaremashita

 

[jonny-mt]

by the way, passive forms are always intransitive??

Not quite. The difference between an intransitive verb and a passive verb construct is that the former does not require an actor and the latter, rather than having the subject/topic do the acting, instead has the subject/topic being acted upon. Believe it or not, the same thing happens in English. For example:

"Bob hit Jan."
ボブはジャンを殴（なぐ）った。
In this instance, Bob is the subject/topic, and the verb hit/殴る is being done to Jan, thus making it a transitive verb (他動詞 - たどうし in Japanese).

"Jan was hit by Bob."
ジャンはボブに殴られた。
Now Jan, rather than Bob, is the subject/topic. Although the verb hit/殴る is now in the passive form, it still describes an action taken by Bob on Jan. Therefore it remains transitive.

"When Jan telephoned the police, Bob ran away."
ジャンは警察（けいさつ）に電話（でんわ）したら、ボブが逃（に）げた。
In this instance, Bob's running (逃げる) does not require another actor--unlike hit/殴る, you do not need someone on the "receiving end". That makes it an intransitive verbs (自動詞 - じどうし).

Hopefully that helps--as long as you remember that the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs is that the former requires someone to act upon (and thus typically an を particle, although there are some exceptions that typically involve direction) and the latter does not (typically denoted by a は or が particle), you'll be all right. Almost all of the passive verbs you run into will be transitive; intransitive passives usually fall under the "affected passive" heading, but that might best be kept for another time

 

[patroclus]

Thank you!

 

[Glenn]

Also, only transitive verbs have a "true" or direct passive form. Intransitive forms only have an "affected" (I learned it as adversity, 迷惑, or 被害) passive.

And, as jonny-mt mentioned, if there is an を it's most likely going to be the adversity passive, unless the dative-marked noun of a ditransitive verb becomes the subject of a direct passive. I'll give an example to help you trod through the terminology:

Ditransitive means that a verb takes two objects: one direct, and one indirect. So, verbs of giving, receiving, and placement are ditransitive verbs. E.g. あげる, 与える, 置く, 入れる, etc. The dative-marked noun (or noun phrase) is the one that is marked with に, so in the sentence 校長先生が学生に賞を与えた, 学生 is dative, or indirect object. Now, this sentence has two passive forms: the first is probably more common, but don't quote me on that -- （校長先生に（よって））学生に賞が与えられた. Note that you can leave out the original subject, 校長先生, because one of the reasons you make a sentence passive is to avoid saying who's doing the action, usually because it's not important.

The other passive version is 学生が賞を与えられた, in which the dative noun (phrase), i.e., the one marked with に, becomes the subject. In this case, the object of the original sentence maintains its object marking (賞を), and there is no adversity meaning. This sentence simply states that the students were given a prize as a neutral fact, and doesn't have the meaning that they somehow suffered from it. I hope that was clear, and not too confusing.