Transitive vs. Intransitive Verb Question

Can someone dissect this sentence and explain why FEASTED is either a transitive or intransitive verb?

That Squirrel feasted on birdseed.

Thank you so much!
Erika :>

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by erika

Can someone dissect this sentence and explain why FEASTED is either a transitive or intransitive verb?

That Squirrel feasted on birdseed.

Thank you so much!
Erika :>

Feast - This essentially means "to eat".

The animals were feasting.

The animals were eating.

What were they eating? They were eating lots of good food.

The animals were feasting on lots of good food.


feast - can take an object or not take an object - It works the same as "eat".

Oftentimes "on" follows "feast". - phrasal - feast on


It's also an idiomatic expression

Idiom:

feast (one's) eyes on

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=feast


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...n+good+food%22

[quote="X Mode"]

Originally Posted by erika

Can someone dissect this sentence and explain why FEASTED is either a transitive or intransitive verb?

That Squirrel feasted on birdseed.

Thank you so much!
Erika :>

**Is feasted an intransitive or transitive verb????**

[Steven D]

That squirrel feasted on birdseed. <<<

That squirrel - complete subject

squirrel - simple subject

feasted - verb

birdseed - object of the verb "feast"

feast on - phrasal verb

feasted on birdseed - predicate - verb + complements

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by erika

**Is feasted an intransitive or transitive verb?**

In addition, :D

There are two ways to determine whether a word or group of words functions as the verb's object (i.e., if a verb is transitive):

(1) omit the words that follow the verb
EX: The squirrel feasted on birdseed into the night.
EX: The squirrel feasted into the night. (OK)

If the resulting sentence is grammatical, then the omitted words are probably not the verb's object. I say 'probably' because test (1) is not fool-proof. (Sometimes the object is omitted, especially if it can be picked up in context: I ate today ~ I ate lunch today.)). So, let's move on to test (2):

(2) separate the verb and the words that follow it

The squirrel feasted on birdseed into the night.
The squirrel feasted into the night on birdseed. (OK)

If the resulting sentence is grammatical, then the omitted words do not function as the verb's object. Consider,

EX: Max washed dishes into the night.
EX: Max washed into the night dishes. (Not OK)
EX: Max washed into the night. (Not OK: it means, Max washed himself)

In the above examples, 'dishes' functions as the object of the verb 'washed', which means 'washed' is transitive: It needs an object in order to realize its meaning.

'feast' is not transitive. It doesn't require an object in order to realize its meaning. We know this because we can (a) omit the words that follow it and (b) move those words around.

BUT, , if the phrasal verb 'feasted on' is used, then 'birdseed' functions as the object of the preposition 'on'. It does not function as the object of the verb.

EX: That squirrel feasted on birdseed. (Object of 'on')

The prepositional phrase 'on birdseed' is added information; it specifies the kind of food that was eaten; 'on birdseed' is not required by the verb in order to express its meaning: something was eaten. That meaning is part of the verb. It's already housed in the verb.

All the best, :D

[Steven D]

What about this? Would you say that "feast" has transitive senses? I understand about the food being the object of "on". However, it seems to me that we could still think of "feast" as being used transitively even though the food is the object of "on". What do you think?

v. feast·ed, feast·ing, feasts
v. tr.

This doesn't appear to be the quite the same as "feasted on", but nevertheless, would be transitive.

To give a feast for; entertain or feed sumptuously: feasted the guests on venison.

v. intr.

To partake of a feast; eat heartily.
To experience something with gratification or delight: feasted on the view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=feast


transitive senses
1 : to give a feast for
2 : DELIGHT, GRATIFY
- feast·er noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by X Mode

What about this? Would you say that "feast" has transitive senses? I understand about the food being the object of "on". However, it seems to me that we could still think of "feast" as being used transitively even though the food is the object of "on". What do you think?

v. feast·ed, feast·ing, feasts
v. tr.

This doesn't appear to be the quite the same as "feasted on", but nevertheless, would be transitive.

To give a feast for; entertain or feed sumptuously: feasted the guests on venison.

v. intr.

To partake of a feast; eat heartily.
To experience something with gratification or delight: feasted on the view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=feast


transitive senses
1 : to give a feast for
2 : DELIGHT, GRATIFY
- feast·er noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

It's a meaty topic! 8) To me, what appears to be the verb's object--what I call a pseudo-object, because it resembles or imitates the true object--functions as added information because it serves to narrow down the semantic content of the verb's implied object. For example,

We feasted. (We ate in a hearty manner)

That 'We' ate food is implied by the verb 'feasted', so adding, say, 'food', results in redundancy,

We feasted on food.

If we remove the implied object food altogether and replace it with a non-food, say, eye-candy: Feast your eyes on that!, 'feast' is transitive,

In a heartily manner, set your eyes on that!

But, in this case 'feast' is synonymous with transitive verbs: 'set/place/grab onto a non-food item', all of which carry a different meaning from 'feast on food'.

As for the transitive sense of 'feast' cited, , notably, "feasted the guests on", we're dealing with semantic association once again,

EX: They feasted the guests on venison.

Intransitive: They ate the guests!
Transitive: They regaled/lavishly entertained the guests with deer meat. :D

In this case, 'feast' is semantically associated with other transitive verbs.

Consider,

EX: It feasted the squirrel on birdseed. (The squirrel is the recipient)
EX: The squirrel feasted on birdseed. (The squirrel is the actor)

In short, I agree with your findings: 'feast' can be transitive or intransitive. Moreover, context determines transitivity. Transitive 'feast' (recipient) and intransitive 'feast' (actor) express different meanings.

I'm really hungry now.

[Steven D]

That 'We' ate food is implied by the verb 'feasted', so adding, say, 'food', results in redundancy,

We feasted on food. <<

I don't think it's a redundancy so much as it is a statement of what is obvious.

Is this a redundancy?

We ate hamburgers and french fries.

Is this a redundancy?

We feasted on hamburgers and french fries.

I appreciate all the feedback, but I am still confused. Is it both? Is it an intransitive or a transitive verb???

THANKS for all the input

[Steven D]

Hi Casio,


Okay,

I get the picture on the rest of what you are saying here.

However, I have to say that the idea that the food is the object of the preposition "on" and not the verb "feast", however accurate in grammatical terms it is, seems to me to be illogical.

For example:

We ate pizza.

We feasted on pizza.

In both sentences "pizza" is the object of what one ingests. Both really mean the same thing.

With feast "pizza" is the object of "on", yes. However, it is still, for practical purposes, the object of what one eats. And what one eats is what one feasts on.

I don't find grammar logic agreeable 100% of the time. But I do understand it.