How to never make a mistake with the object of a verb?

[Hall]

What can I do so as to never make a mistake regarding the object of a verb, that is whether the verb will take an object or not (transitive/intransitive) and if it takes then how many are allowed?

Learning all the verbs in each category doesn’t seem to be a very good idea. General knowledge also doesn’t work, for example “contend for” is an intransitive verb. I think the advice “read a lot” doesn’t have any proper limitation for producing a deterministic result.

Do you make mistakes with objects of verbs as a native speaker?

 

[jedishrfu]

Usually, native speakers have many sentence patterns and word examples stored away and seldom make these mistakes. I recall Latin being a complicated language with all its conjugations, declensions, and exceptions to learn but to a native speaker, it would not be a problem.

What language are we talking about?

 

[Hall]

What language are we talking about?

English.

Some people on internet English forums use softwares which automatically detect for transitive/intransitive verb and finds out the mistakes on a given post.

My aim is not that. Newspaper reviewers/editors don’t usually correct the mistakes of incoming articles, as the articles are written by men-of-knowledge themselves, they just change the unusual things into a style which is currently prevailing. My aim is ,also, not to conform to the most accepted style.

I want to achieve the accuracy of English (as a language not people) novelists/poets, say, for example Oscar Wilde or Robert Browning. As you might have been reading my posts you have got an idea that I need not to begin from very basic, yet I’m confused where to start; I cannot read school level grammar books, they work better than melatonin for me.

What do you recommend?

 

[jedishrfu]

How about using Grammarly?

It has a monthly charge and you should note that it needs the internet to work and upload your writing to analyze it and return its suggestions.

I use it now, and it helps me compose posts, and I am a native English speaker. Sometimes, I don't agree with its suggestions, but in general, it finds mistakes or overly wordy phrases that I occasionally use.

 

[pbuk]

What can I do so as to never make a mistake regarding the object of a verb, that is whether the verb will take an object or not (transitive/intransitive) and if it takes then how many are allowed?

Look it up in a good dictionary appropriate to the language, for example Merriam Webster for American English, Cambridge for British English. Read the examples.

General knowledge also doesn’t work, for example “contend for” is an intransitive verb.

No it isn't: "contend for" is not a phrasal verb. "Contend" is the verb alone, and it can be transitive or intransitive: in the sentence "I contend for the title" it is intransitive but in the sentence "They contend that they were correct" it is transitive ("that they were correct" is the object).

Do you make mistakes with objects of verbs as a native speaker?

No, this is an obvious sign of a non-native speaker.

 

[pbuk]

What do you recommend?

Writing prose and having it corrected by a good teacher - see below.

Reading well-written non-fiction, particularly well-written newspapers (e.g. The Times in the UK, New York Times in the US) and journals (e.g. The Economist, Time).

I'm going to correct just one paragraph of your post below:

Some people on internet English forums use softwares software [software is uncountable: it never takes an 's'] which automatically detects for [detect is transitive: it is not followed by "for"] transitive/intransitive verb verbs [there will be more than one verb to detect!] and finds out [software finds the mistakes, it does not find out [about] the mistakes] the mistakes on in a given post.

In relation to this comment:

My aim is, also, not to conform to the most accepted style.

I will say something that has been said before on PhysicsForums in a different context: in order to think outside the box you first have to learn what is in the box.

 

[jedishrfu]

Dear @pbuk

Asking as a cat with very few lives left, would that be an open box or a closed box?

Signed,
Schrodinger's Cat

 

[symbolipoint]

What can I do so as to never make a mistake regarding the object of a verb, that is whether the verb will take an object or not (transitive/intransitive) and if it takes then how many are allowed?

Learning all the verbs in each category doesn’t seem to be a very good idea. General knowledge also doesn’t work, for example “contend for” is an intransitive verb. I think the advice “read a lot” doesn’t have any proper limitation for producing a deterministic result.

Do you make mistakes with objects of verbs as a native speaker?

Exactly what you want is still in need of better explanation. Maybe you are trying to distinguish between Direct Object and Indirect Object. Easy enough for the Langauge experts to explain, if this is what you want to understand.

 

[jtbell]

What can I do so as to never make a mistake regarding the object of a verb, that is whether the verb will take an object or not (transitive/intransitive) and if it takes then how many are allowed?

Can you give some specific examples of these mistakes?

As a native speaker and writer of English, I learned mostly by imitation when I was a child, and by reading a lot of well-written material (newspapers, magazines, etc.). Formal rules-based instruction in school only codified and sharpened that knowledge a bit.

I suspect that what you're asking may simply need to be memorized on a verb-by-verb basis, or internalized by reading many examples. As an analogy, when I was learning German, I had to learn the grammatical gender of nouns, and therefore e.g. which article to use with them (der, die, das), either by rote (memorizing lists in textbooks, using little flash-cards, etc.) or by "absorbing" them after seeing the same words repeatedly while reading. One can reliably infer the gender for certain categories of nouns, but they're far from universal.

 

[Mark44]

Maybe you are trying to distinguish between Direct Object and Indirect Object.

I don't think so. From the context of the OP's posts, it seems to me that the concern is with transitive verbs (which take direct objects) vs. intransitive verbs.

What can be confusing to non-native speakers of English is that there are lots of verbs that can be used transitively or intransitively. For example:
The children played outside. (Intrans.)
The girl played her guitar. (Trans.)

The doors close at 9 pm. (Intrans.)
At 9 pm, the owners close the doors. (Trans.)

 

[jtbell]

Whereas some languages have more distinct intransitive/transitive verb pairs. I changed your example slightly to make the two versions more alike:

English:
The doors close at 9 pm.
The owners close the doors at 9 pm.

Finnish:
Ovet sulkeutuvat klo 21.
Omistajat sulkevat ovet klo 21.
["klo" is the standard abbreviation for "kello" = "clock" when giving specific times]

However, in German the two verbs are the same:
Die Türen schließen um 21 Uhr.
Die Besitzer schließen die Türen um 21 Uhr.

 

[Hall]

Can you give some specific examples of these mistakes?

As a native speaker and writer of English, I learned mostly by imitation when I was a child, and by reading a lot of well-written material (newspapers, magazines, etc.). Formal rules-based instruction in school only codified and sharpened that knowledge a bit.

I suspect that what you're asking may simply need to be memorized on a verb-by-verb basis, or internalized by reading many examples. As an analogy, when I was learning German, I had to learn the grammatical gender of nouns, and therefore e.g. which article to use with them (der, die, das), either by rote (memorizing lists in textbooks, using little flash-cards, etc.) or by "absorbing" them after seeing the same words repeatedly while reading. One can reliably infer the gender for certain categories of nouns, but they're far from universal.

It is quite surprising that you know three very different languages.

I'm looking for a software, as @jedishrfu has suggested for Grammarly butt as I have began using it I haven't found it very competent, I need a little more rigorous software.

 

[Hall]

Can you give some specific examples of these mistakes?

Once I wrote "Can someone suggest another term for 'social fact'?" and I was pointed out that I had given two objects to the verb "suggest", but according to grammar it can take only one object. The exact remark was:

You have a grammatical mistake in your question. You cannot use suggest with an indirect object in standard English. It does not work like take, bring, ask. It is monotransitive not ditransitive, so it can only take a single object. If you to indicate a beneficiary or recipient, you must use a prepositional phrase to do so, not an indirect object. You should really suggest that to Susan

 

[pbuk]

I'm looking for a software, as @jedishrfu has suggested for Grammarly butt as I have began using it I haven't found it very competent, I need a little more rigorous software.

I am not a fan of Grammarly but it did OK on that sentence, finding two out of the four errors. At an error rate of one per eight words I really don't think you are in a position to judge the competence of software.

 

[pbuk]

Once I wrote "Can someone suggest another term for 'social fact'?" and I was pointed out that I had given two objects to the verb "suggest", but according to grammar it can take only one object. The exact remark was:

There is nothing wrong with "can someone suggest another term for 'social fact'?".

I suspect that what you actually wrote was "can someone suggest me another term for 'social fact'?", and the problem with that is not that you have too many objects; it is that "suggest" cannot be used with an indirect object. "Can someone suggest me?" is equally wrong (unless it is you that is actually being suggested, perhaps as a candidate for a prize). A better way to write this is "can someone suggest to me another term for 'social fact'?", and perhaps even better "can someone suggest another term for 'social fact' to me?".

Note that other verbs such as "give" can be used with one indirect object when they are used ditransitively: "can someone give me another term for 'social fact'?" is correct. This is very subtle, for example "donate" is almost a synonym of "give" but whereas you can say "he gave Water Aid a generous sum" you must say "he donated a generous sum to Water Aid".