Are verbal nouns or suru verbs transitive, intransitive, both, or either depending on the verbal noun or suru verb?


Are verbal nouns or suru verb transitive, intransitive, both, or either
depending on the verbal noun or suru verb? For example: if you had the suru
verb 勉強する (study), could it have a direct object and therefore be
intransitive/transitive?

If verbal nouns can be either transitive or intransitive, where can I find if
a verbal noun or suru verb is transitive/intransitive? Jisho dictionary
doesn't show if suru verbs are intransitive/transitive.




## Defining our terms

I sense some confusion around the terms _transitive_ and _intransitive_. Let's
define our terms first, and then we can look at your question.

### "Transitivity" in English

In English grammar contexts, _transitivity_ is often talked about as a
property of **syntax** -- the structure of the given sentence. A verb is
"transitive" if that sentence has an explicitly stated object for that verb.
Meanwhile, a verb is "intransitive" if that sentence does not have any
explicitly stated object for that verb.

That's actually what the label _transitive_ refers to: the action of the verb
_transits_ or "goes across" to some other noun.

Compare:

  * I **eat** _pizza_.  
The verb here is **eat** , and in this sentence, the verb is
t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, because that verb has the object _pizza_.

  * I **eat**.  
The verb here is **eat** , and in this sentence, the verb is
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, because that verb has no object.

  * I **walk** _the line_.  
The verb here is **walk** , and in this sentence, the verb is
t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, because that verb has the object _the line_.

  * I **walk**.  
The verb here is **walk** , and in this sentence, the verb is
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, because that verb has no object.

### "Transitivity" in Japanese

In Japanese grammar contexts, _transitivity_ is a instead property of
**semantics** -- the meaning of a given verb. A verb is "transitive" if that
verb describes an action on some other noun. Meanwhile, a verb is
"intransitive" if that verb does not describe an action affecting some other
noun.

_(Note that what specifically meets the terms of "affecting some other noun"
can be culturally bound and tricky to figure out -- more on that below.)_

The Japanese terms for these are 他動詞【たどうし】, literally "other-acting word", and
自動詞【じどうし】, literally "self-acting word".

Compare:

  * 私【わたし】は _ピザ_ を **食【た】べる** 。  
The verb here is **食【た】べる** , and this verb is always t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲,
always a 他動詞【たどうし】, because that verb describes an action that fundamentally
requires an object -- when you "eat", you're always eating "something", even
if we don't say what that "something" is. Here, we have the object _ピザ_ , but
the verb **食【た】べる** would still be t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ even without that
object.

  * 私【わたし】は **食【た】べる** 。  
The verb here is **食【た】べる** , and this verb is always t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲,
always a 他動詞【たどうし】, because that verb describes an action that fundamentally
requires an object -- when you "eat", you're always eating "something", even
if we don't say what that "something" is. Here, we have no object at all, and
the verb **食【た】べる** is still t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲.

  * 私【わたし】は _ライン_ を **歩【ある】く** 。  
The verb here is **歩【ある】く** , and this verb is always
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, always a 自動詞【じどうし】, because that verb describes an
action that only changes things for the subject -- when you "walk", the action
only directly affects you, nothing else. Here, we have the object __, but the
verb **歩【ある】く** is still i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ even with that object.

  * 私【わたし】は **歩【ある】く** 。  
The verb here is **歩【ある】く** , and this verb is always
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, always a 自動詞【じどうし】, because that verb describes an
action that only changes things for the subject -- when you "walk", the action
only directly affects you, nothing else. Here, we have no object at all, and
the verb **歩【ある】く** is still i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲.

## Your question

> Are verbal nouns or suru verbs transitive, intransitive, both, or either
> depending on the verbal noun or suru verb?

Herein lies some confusion.

I'll ignore the bit about _" verbal nouns"_, since a noun by definition cannot
be transitive or intransitive.

Restated, your question amounts to, _" is a verb transitive depending on the
verb?"_ In which case, the answer has to be **yes**.

However, I _think_ instead you're asking, **_" How do I tell if a_ suru _verb
is transitive? "_** There are two ways to approach this.

### Dictionaries

Japanese dictionaries do a sadly awful job in recording this information. Some
dictionaries will at least indicate whether a given _suru_ verb is even a
_suru_ verb, and not just a noun -- Daijirin does this, as does Digital
Daijisen: [here's Daijisen's entry for
学習【がくしゅう】](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%AD%A6%E7%BF%92-11976#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89),
for instance. The top of the entry has the notation ［名］(スル), indicating that
this is a **[名]{めい}** [詞]{し} or _noun_ , and that it can take する as a verb.
But there's no explicit indication whether this is a 自動詞【じどうし】 (intransitive
verb) or 他動詞【たどうし】 (transitive verb). We have to look at the sample questions
to guess that it might be a 他動詞【たどうし】 (transitive verb), since one of these
uses the direct-object construction 「英語[を]{●}学習する」.

By contrast, [here's the 学習【がくしゅう】 entry in Shogakukan's _Kokugo Dai
Jiten_](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%AD%A6%E7%BF%92-11976#E7.B2.BE.E9.81.B8.E7.89.88.20.E6.97.A5.E6.9C.AC.E5.9B.BD.E8.AA.9E.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E5.85.B8).
That entry only indicates 〘名〙, that the word is a **[名]{めい}** [詞]{し} or _noun_
, with no information about verb-ness or transitivity -- not even any sample
sentences using a verb construction.

### Semantics

Another way of approaching this question is to consider the **semantics** of
the verb, the underlying meaning: **Does this action require an object in
order to make sense?**

Think about "eating" and "walking" in our examples above. Then think about
_suru_ verbs like 勉強【べんきょう】する ("to study") or 学習【がくしゅう】する ("to learn"). Is it
possible for someone or something to 勉強【べんきょう】 or 学習【がくしゅう】 without an object?
**No.** These actions fundamentally **require** an object, even if that object
is unstated. We know that when someone 勉強【べんきょう】するs or 学習【がくしゅう】するs, they are
doing those actions on something else -- whatever books or subject material
they are studying or learning from. So we can surmise that these _suru_ verbs
are 他動詞【たどうし】 or t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ verbs.

What about 故障【こしょう】する ("to have a breakdown, to malfunction")? Is it possible
for someone or something to 故障【こしょう】する without an object? **Yes.** This action
is fundamentally something that a noun does all on its own. We know that when
something 故障【こしょう】するs, that something is doing the action itself -- nothing
else is directly affected. So we can surmise that this _suru_ verb is a
自動詞【じどうし】 or i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ verb.

### Note

As we see above with our 歩【ある】く example, some 自動詞【じどうし】 or
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ verbs can still take direct objects. In many such
cases, these are verbs of motion, and the syntactical objects describe where
or how the action is being performed. Consider English constructions like _"
drive the highway"_, or _" go that route"_, where _highway_ and _route_ are
the objects of the verbs.

And some verbs are a̲m̲b̲i̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, where they describe action
that can be either "self-acting" or "other-acting". Take 完成【かんせい】する ("to
complete"), for instance. [Daijisen's
entry](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%AE%8C%E6%88%90-470378#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89)
includes sample sentences showing both 自動詞【じどうし】 and 他動詞【たどうし】 senses:

  * 「ビルが完成する」 → the building becomes complete on its own: 自動詞【じどうし】 / i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲
  * 「大作を完成する」 → someone or something completes the great work: 他動詞【たどうし】 / t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲

Meanwhile, [this Chiebukuro
thread](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q143450544)
suggests that at least some native speakers consider 完成【かんせい】する to be
exclusively a 自動詞【じどうし】 / i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ verb. So usage patterns for
this particular verb may not be entirely settled.

> **_" How do I tell if a_ suru _verb is transitive? "_**

Ultimately, 1) look in dictionaries for sample sentences, 2) think about the
nature of the action itself, and 3) also check in with native speakers.




## Defining our terms

I sense some confusion around the terms _transitive_ and _intransitive_. Let's
define our terms first, and then we can look at your question.

### "Transitivity" in English

In English grammar contexts, _transitivity_ is often talked about as a
property of **syntax** -- the structure of the given sentence. A verb is
"transitive" if that sentence has an explicitly stated object for that verb.
Meanwhile, a verb is "intransitive" if that sentence does not have any
explicitly stated object for that verb.

That's actually what the label _transitive_ refers to: the action of the verb
_transits_ or "goes across" to some other noun.

Compare:

  * I **eat** _pizza_.  
The verb here is **eat** , and in this sentence, the verb is
t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, because that verb has the object _pizza_.

  * I **eat**.  
The verb here is **eat** , and in this sentence, the verb is
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, because that verb has no object.

  * I **walk** _the line_.  
The verb here is **walk** , and in this sentence, the verb is
t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, because that verb has the object _the line_.

  * I **walk**.  
The verb here is **walk** , and in this sentence, the verb is
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, because that verb has no object.

### "Transitivity" in Japanese

In Japanese grammar contexts, _transitivity_ is a instead property of
**semantics** -- the meaning of a given verb. A verb is "transitive" if that
verb describes an action on some other noun. Meanwhile, a verb is
"intransitive" if that verb does not describe an action affecting some other
noun.

_(Note that what specifically meets the terms of "affecting some other noun"
can be culturally bound and tricky to figure out -- more on that below.)_

The Japanese terms for these are 他動詞【たどうし】, literally "other-acting word", and
自動詞【じどうし】, literally "self-acting word".

Compare:

  * 私【わたし】は _ピザ_ を **食【た】べる** 。  
The verb here is **食【た】べる** , and this verb is always t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲,
always a 他動詞【たどうし】, because that verb describes an action that fundamentally
requires an object -- when you "eat", you're always eating "something", even
if we don't say what that "something" is. Here, we have the object _ピザ_ , but
the verb **食【た】べる** would still be t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ even without that
object.

  * 私【わたし】は **食【た】べる** 。  
The verb here is **食【た】べる** , and this verb is always t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲,
always a 他動詞【たどうし】, because that verb describes an action that fundamentally
requires an object -- when you "eat", you're always eating "something", even
if we don't say what that "something" is. Here, we have no object at all, and
the verb **食【た】べる** is still t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲.

  * 私【わたし】は _ライン_ を **歩【ある】く** 。  
The verb here is **歩【ある】く** , and this verb is always
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, always a 自動詞【じどうし】, because that verb describes an
action that only changes things for the subject -- when you "walk", the action
only directly affects you, nothing else. Here, we have the object __, but the
verb **歩【ある】く** is still i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ even with that object.

  * 私【わたし】は **歩【ある】く** 。  
The verb here is **歩【ある】く** , and this verb is always
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, always a 自動詞【じどうし】, because that verb describes an
action that only changes things for the subject -- when you "walk", the action
only directly affects you, nothing else. Here, we have no object at all, and
the verb **歩【ある】く** is still i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲.

## Your question

> Are verbal nouns or suru verbs transitive, intransitive, both, or either
> depending on the verbal noun or suru verb?

Herein lies some confusion.

I'll ignore the bit about _" verbal nouns"_, since a noun by definition cannot
be transitive or intransitive.

Restated, your question amounts to, _" is a verb transitive depending on the
verb?"_ In which case, the answer has to be **yes**.

However, I _think_ instead you're asking, **_" How do I tell if a_ suru _verb
is transitive? "_** There are two ways to approach this.

### Dictionaries

Japanese dictionaries do a sadly awful job in recording this information. Some
dictionaries will at least indicate whether a given _suru_ verb is even a
_suru_ verb, and not just a noun -- Daijirin does this, as does Digital
Daijisen: [here's Daijisen's entry for
学習【がくしゅう】](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%AD%A6%E7%BF%92-11976#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89),
for instance. The top of the entry has the notation ［名］(スル), indicating that
this is a **[名]{めい}** [詞]{し} or _noun_ , and that it can take する as a verb.
But there's no explicit indication whether this is a 自動詞【じどうし】 (intransitive
verb) or 他動詞【たどうし】 (transitive verb). We have to look at the sample questions
to guess that it might be a 他動詞【たどうし】 (transitive verb), since one of these
uses the direct-object construction 「英語[を]{●}学習する」.

By contrast, [here's the 学習【がくしゅう】 entry in Shogakukan's _Kokugo Dai
Jiten_](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%AD%A6%E7%BF%92-11976#E7.B2.BE.E9.81.B8.E7.89.88.20.E6.97.A5.E6.9C.AC.E5.9B.BD.E8.AA.9E.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E5.85.B8).
That entry only indicates 〘名〙, that the word is a **[名]{めい}** [詞]{し} or _noun_
, with no information about verb-ness or transitivity -- not even any sample
sentences using a verb construction.

### Semantics

Another way of approaching this question is to consider the **semantics** of
the verb, the underlying meaning: **Does this action require an object in
order to make sense?**

Think about "eating" and "walking" in our examples above. Then think about
_suru_ verbs like 勉強【べんきょう】する ("to study") or 学習【がくしゅう】する ("to learn"). Is it
possible for someone or something to 勉強【べんきょう】 or 学習【がくしゅう】 without an object?
**No.** These actions fundamentally **require** an object, even if that object
is unstated. We know that when someone 勉強【べんきょう】するs or 学習【がくしゅう】するs, they are
doing those actions on something else -- whatever books or subject material
they are studying or learning from. So we can surmise that these _suru_ verbs
are 他動詞【たどうし】 or t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ verbs.

What about 故障【こしょう】する ("to have a breakdown, to malfunction")? Is it possible
for someone or something to 故障【こしょう】する without an object? **Yes.** This action
is fundamentally something that a noun does all on its own. We know that when
something 故障【こしょう】するs, that something is doing the action itself -- nothing
else is directly affected. So we can surmise that this _suru_ verb is a
自動詞【じどうし】 or i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ verb.

### Note

As we see above with our 歩【ある】く example, some 自動詞【じどうし】 or
i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ verbs can still take direct objects. In many such
cases, these are verbs of motion, and the syntactical objects describe where
or how the action is being performed. Consider English constructions like _"
drive the highway"_, or _" go that route"_, where _highway_ and _route_ are
the objects of the verbs.

And some verbs are a̲m̲b̲i̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲, where they describe action
that can be either "self-acting" or "other-acting". Take 完成【かんせい】する ("to
complete"), for instance. [Daijisen's
entry](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%AE%8C%E6%88%90-470378#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89)
includes sample sentences showing both 自動詞【じどうし】 and 他動詞【たどうし】 senses:

  * 「ビルが完成する」 → the building becomes complete on its own: 自動詞【じどうし】 / i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲
  * 「大作を完成する」 → someone or something completes the great work: 他動詞【たどうし】 / t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲

Meanwhile, [this Chiebukuro
thread](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q143450544)
suggests that at least some native speakers consider 完成【かんせい】する to be
exclusively a 自動詞【じどうし】 / i̲n̲t̲r̲a̲n̲s̲i̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ verb. So usage patterns for
this particular verb may not be entirely settled.

> **_" How do I tell if a_ suru _verb is transitive? "_**

Ultimately, 1) look in dictionaries for sample sentences, 2) think about the
nature of the action itself, and 3) also check in with native speakers.

