I'm a fairly new ESL teacher. One of my students asked me recently why "…to comply with the rules of grammar" needs a preposition (with), whereas "…to follow the rules of grammar" doesn't. After some research, I decided that the answer is that "comply" is an intransitive verb, so it needs a prepositional phrase, and "follow" is a transitive verb, so it needs a direct object.
This is the answer I gave her, but I'm still unsatisfied with it. What is the difference, really? If "comply with" and "follow" are interchangeable in this sentence, why is one instance of "the rules" a direct object, and another a part of a prepositional phrase? Doesn't "with the rules" act as a direct object?
When a student asks me "why do some verbs need prepositions and others don't?" is the answer always "intransitive vs. transitive verbs?"
Thank you,
Lee
Best Answer
I agree with you, except that "transitive" and "intransitive" are too general to be of much use.
Every verb in English (and I think in most languages) has one or more subcategorisation frames, which specify both the number and the kinds of the arguments it takes.
So follow usually takes a direct object (as you say, it is transitive).
Comply cannot take a direct object, but usually requires a "with" phrase: as you say, it is intransitive, but it is part of the syntax of this word that it requires a "with" phrase rather than, say a "to" phrase, so "intransitive" does not capture all the information.
For another similar pair, consider "eat" and "dine". "Eat" almost always requires an object (and if it doesn't, it is usually being used in the special meaning of "have a meal", not just "consume"). "Dine" usually does not take an object, and if it does, it requires an "on" phrase.
For further intricacies about subcategorisation, consider "want" and "wish". Both can take a clause as a direct object; but "wish" can take either a "that" clause ("I wish that I could fly") or an infinitive clause ("I wish to fly"), while in current English "want" can take only an infinitive clause ("I want to go home") and not a "that" clause (*"I want that I go/could go home"). Again, this is part of the intrinsic character of the particular verbs, but this difference is certainly not captured by "transitive" vs "intransitive".
As to why: like most "why" questions about language, the answer is "because that's how it is".