Liveinjapan Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
Threaten
They threatened to kill him unless he did as they asked. "threaten" is transitive according to Cambridge.
If something bad threatens to happen, it is likely to happen: "threaten" is intrasitive, right?
If the bold parts are right, it's a bit difficult for me to tell a transitive from a intransitive. Could you tell me an easy way to tell.
It looks like, in the first, "him" is omitted after "threatened."
If something bad threatens to happen, it is likely to happen: "threaten" is intrasitive, right?
If the bold parts are right, it's a bit difficult for me to tell a transitive from a intransitive. Could you tell me an easy way to tell.
It looks like, in the first, "him" is omitted after "threatened."
Top answer
>Could you tell me an easy way to tell. I can't think of any that it would cover all cases. This is a tough verb.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
0
>Could you tell me an easy way to tell.
I can't think of any that it would cover all cases. This is a tough verb.
---------
threat·en
transitive verb
1 : to utter http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridge
I can't think of any that it would cover all cases. This is a tough verb.
---------
threat·en
transitive verb
1 : to utter http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridge
00
Thanks, Marius.
I think the definition 'to utter' makes me comfortable.
I think the definition 'to utter' makes me comfortable.
00
LiveinjapanI think the definition 'to utter' makes me comfortable.Hmmm. I don't personally see why it makes any difference if it's an utterance or not. I don't see why "it's threatening to happen" (not an utterance) and "he's threatening to leave" (probably an utterance) should be any different in terms of "transitiveness".
Edit (later addition):
00