prepositionstransitive-verbs
Galileo was forced to recant his assertion that the earth orbited the
sun (Oxford Dictionary)Can one recant on an absence of belief? (The Secret Intensity of
Everyday Life)
The first “recant” is a transitive verb. And Wikipedia says the second “recant on” is a transitive particle verb. Can any transitive verb be accompanied by a preposition to add the preposition’s meaning?
You'll have to explain what you mean by "proper standard" — but, no, what the "bigger hitters" (again, what are these?) are doing is waiting until a usage is far-reaching enough for them to bother to document it. I guess that's what you'd call playing it conservative.
That said, what one does to an itch is scratch it. Something can itch (intransitive) all by itself, or be itchy, but itching an itch feels like a bizarre usage to me. I'd be curious to know what dictionaries endorse that use.
NOAD, for example, lists only an intransitive form:
itch verb [intrans.] be the site of or cause an itch : the bite itched like crazy.
Addendum I answered this nine years ago, but since then I've recognized that this usage does in fact exist, though still without apparent documentation in the usual sources. See this new question on EL&U.
Yes, there may be a distinction between "elaborate" used with a normal direct object and "elaborate on" used with a prepositional object: the former, where it is used, tends to mean "create, establish", whereas the latter tends to mean "give further details about". If you look at these examples from the Europarl corpus:
http://www.translationexamples.com/ex/en-fr/elaborate
you'll see examples such as:
"must outline a concrete strategy ... and elaborate a detailed investment plan"
where the implication does appear to be create a plan, not develop one already in existence, vs:
"elaborate a little on what you said".
where the idea is "go into more detail".
As an informal intuitive observation, I would have said that the first usage isn't very common. However, I did a quick check on Google ngram and the figures appear to belie my intuition:
If these figures are anything to go by, "elaborate on" appears to be a relatively recent innovation, vs a time when "elaborate" was practically always used with a 'straight' direct object.
Interestingly, as testimony to this being a relatively recent innovation, Websters 1913 edition doesn't appear to mention the possibility of "elaborate" with 'on', but gives the following definition and example of transitive 'elaborate':
"To perfect with painstaking; to improve or refine with labor and study, or by successive operations; as, to elaborate a painting or a literary work."
Best Answer
"A transitive particle verb" is also called a "transitive phrasal verb" or a "transitive two-word verb". It's the kind talked about in the Q about "looked at". Wikipedia says: "A transitive particle verb has a nominal object in addition to the particle. If the object is an ordinary noun phrase, it can usually appear on either side of the particle, although very long noun phrases tend to come after the particle". So, when it's possible to say something like Switch the light off, "the light" appears to function as the direct object of "switch". And when you say "say something like Switch off the light," "the light" appears to function as the direct object of "switch off".
I use appears to function because I don't want to make an authoritative claim here. This requires the expertise of a professional linguist because it's a small technical point, not something that seems to have any effect on how we civilians (including "lapsed linguists" [like me], as one user here calls himself) use the language. All we need to know is whether we can separate the verb form switch and the particle/preposition (whichever your theoretical position says the term should be) by putting the light in between them.
I'd say the answer to your question is "No". But there are other verbs of this type, e.g., hand in as in {Hand in your homework / Hand your homework in} before the test.