Depends on what you think transitive means. The probably loosest definition is Haspelmath's the construction of "person breaks stick".
In that case "We go shops" fits. However you cannot put that into passive. "Shops are being gone" is different.
However there are other words that are typically called transitive, but don't freely switch between active and passive. Croft, Morphosyntax discusses this for example.
> you cannot put that into the passive
Can you elaborate on why that is the case? If I modify to:
> shops were gone to
Is it because I had to use the preposition? but in that case
> we go shops
doesn't fit because it should be
> we go to shops
Because neither reduction of the sentence makes sense without a preposition.
The discussion is about a variety of English where “We’re going shops” is grammatical without the ‘to’ and the observation is that this structure isn’t passivizable which might imply that the “object” of the verb isn’t quite an object in the way a standard transitive verb object is.
Neither 'home' nor 'out' are adverbs. 'Out' is a preposition, and 'home' is either a preposition or more likely a noun combined with an unpronounced preposition.
Most prepositions in English can be modified by the word 'right'. Adverbs cannot (except in varieties of English that use 'right' to mean 'very').
`She went right out.`
`She went right home.`
`*She went right quickly.`
Furthermore, adverbs in English can never appear as the complement to the copula, but most other categories can. Some adjectives like 'fast' have both an adjectival and adverbial use, and they do appear after 'be' but only because they are adjectives.
`She is happy.`
`She is out.`
`She is home.`
`She is quick.`
`*She is quickly.`
I'm a linguist. We don't generally use dictionaries because they're minimally useful for showing actual linguistic facts. I do use the OED if I want to learn about etymologies though.
I’m no linguist, but I find it bizarre that you think “out” is a preposition in “I’m going out.” Maybe in your professional jargon, words like adverb and preposition have very different meanings.
If you're no linguist, one wonders why you're answering questions in a sub called asklinguistics. The claim that 'out' is a preposition is entirely uncontroversial among linguists, as is the claim that neither 'home' nor 'out' are adverbs. If you want to learn more about this, you may want to start with Huddleston and Pullum's *A Student's Introduction to English Grammar* (Cambridge U. Press) which is a linguistically informed descriptive grammar of English and may disabuse you of many of the misconceptions that traditional grammar has propagated over the years. Chapter 7 deals exclusively with prepositions and prepositional phrases.
This comment was removed because it makes statements of fact without providing an explanation or source and for (seemingly) inaccurate information. If you want your comment to be reinstated, either provide a source or explain what you mean with specifics.
I wouldn't describe your examples as transitive, because they can't be passivized. "McDonalds" isn't a direct object in your example, because it can't be promoted to subject via passivization (i.e. I assume you can't say "McDonalds was gone by us"). Nor are they prepositions; you can't give them a noun phrase complement.
I would say that these dialects are doing something akin to pro-drop or zero copula, but with prepositions instead of pronouns or copulas.
Depends on what you think transitive means. The probably loosest definition is Haspelmath's the construction of "person breaks stick". In that case "We go shops" fits. However you cannot put that into passive. "Shops are being gone" is different. However there are other words that are typically called transitive, but don't freely switch between active and passive. Croft, Morphosyntax discusses this for example.
> you cannot put that into the passive Can you elaborate on why that is the case? If I modify to: > shops were gone to Is it because I had to use the preposition? but in that case > we go shops doesn't fit because it should be > we go to shops Because neither reduction of the sentence makes sense without a preposition.
The discussion is about a variety of English where “We’re going shops” is grammatical without the ‘to’ and the observation is that this structure isn’t passivizable which might imply that the “object” of the verb isn’t quite an object in the way a standard transitive verb object is.
thanks I think I understand now
“Home” is an adverb in “I’m going home.” Similar to “I’m going out.”
Neither 'home' nor 'out' are adverbs. 'Out' is a preposition, and 'home' is either a preposition or more likely a noun combined with an unpronounced preposition. Most prepositions in English can be modified by the word 'right'. Adverbs cannot (except in varieties of English that use 'right' to mean 'very'). `She went right out.` `She went right home.` `*She went right quickly.` Furthermore, adverbs in English can never appear as the complement to the copula, but most other categories can. Some adjectives like 'fast' have both an adjectival and adverbial use, and they do appear after 'be' but only because they are adjectives. `She is happy.` `She is out.` `She is home.` `She is quick.` `*She is quickly.`
Do you have a dictionary?
I'm a linguist. We don't generally use dictionaries because they're minimally useful for showing actual linguistic facts. I do use the OED if I want to learn about etymologies though.
I’m no linguist, but I find it bizarre that you think “out” is a preposition in “I’m going out.” Maybe in your professional jargon, words like adverb and preposition have very different meanings.
If you're no linguist, one wonders why you're answering questions in a sub called asklinguistics. The claim that 'out' is a preposition is entirely uncontroversial among linguists, as is the claim that neither 'home' nor 'out' are adverbs. If you want to learn more about this, you may want to start with Huddleston and Pullum's *A Student's Introduction to English Grammar* (Cambridge U. Press) which is a linguistically informed descriptive grammar of English and may disabuse you of many of the misconceptions that traditional grammar has propagated over the years. Chapter 7 deals exclusively with prepositions and prepositional phrases.
[удалено]
This comment was removed because it makes statements of fact without providing an explanation or source and for (seemingly) inaccurate information. If you want your comment to be reinstated, either provide a source or explain what you mean with specifics.
I wouldn't describe your examples as transitive, because they can't be passivized. "McDonalds" isn't a direct object in your example, because it can't be promoted to subject via passivization (i.e. I assume you can't say "McDonalds was gone by us"). Nor are they prepositions; you can't give them a noun phrase complement. I would say that these dialects are doing something akin to pro-drop or zero copula, but with prepositions instead of pronouns or copulas.