Do intransitive verbs surmount their handicap?

[aysaa]

Hi,

As we know that intransitive verbs cannot be made passive such as ''Fresh chicken may be disappeared in Hong Kong'' (That is WRONG!)

But my question is that can we say when an intransitive verb is used in a causative sense it becomes transitive?

For example:

1-The magician had the rabbit disappear.
2-She got the dog to jump.

3-The magician had the keys disappeared.
4-The magician got the keys disappeared.

Are they OK?

Thanks.

[emsr2d2]

3 & 4 are incorrect.

[aysaa]

Thanks for the answer, but I couldn't understand why the 3 and 4 are incorrect while the 1 and 2 are Ok?

[konungursvia]

They made the keys disappear. Yes, causatives are comparable to passive voice verbs when we omit mention of the person who is the agent of the verb: The rabbit was manipulated in such a way as to be made to disappear. [Awkward, but causative and passive]. The magician made the keys disappear. [Causative, not passive, because "the magician made" is active.]

[aysaa]

Is it the right way to use they made the keys disappear or they made the keys disappered? Anyway, I am talking about the number 3 and 4. That is,

3-The magician had the keys disappeared.
4-The magician got the keys disappeared.

[bhaisahab]

1 and 2 are not comparable with 3 and 4.

[aysaa]

I think I got it. It is because intransitive verbs cannot be made passive, is that right?

The verb cavort is an intransitive verb, and we cannot use it in the passive voice. To be carvorted will be wrong.

For example:

1-I got her to cavort for hours yesterday. (It is OK)

2-I got the doll cavorted for hours yesterday in order for my daughter to have fun.

The sentence 2 is incorrect because of the intransitive verb ''cavort'', is that right?