Please help me understand more about intransitive verb and transitive verb


I will give a sentence as an example:

> 本が深く教えてなかった。

The first question: Could things like book or door or etc... become
**subject** of a transitive verb ?

The second question: Could a transitive verb work **without an object** ?




本が深く教えてなかった sounds unnatural and hardly makes sense to me. In casual
conversations, we usually say, for example, 本を読んでもよく分からなかった instead, with "I"
as the implicit subject.

Your first question is covered in this question: [In Japanese, can we say an
object asks a question?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/32436/5010)

As for your second question, yes it's sometimes possible to omit an object.
For example, you don't have to repeat the same object again in a conversation
like this:

> A: その本を読みましたか。 Did you read the book?  
>  B: いいえ、まだです。 No, not yet.  
>  A: では、読んでください。 Then please read _it_.

However many transitive verbs would make little sense if they completely lack
the object. You don't usually say "I say" without specifying what you say.
It's better to use an intransitive verb which have a similar meaning (e.g.,
there is a word "to chat" which does not require an object)




本が深く教えてなかった sounds unnatural and hardly makes sense to me. In casual
conversations, we usually say, for example, 本を読んでもよく分からなかった instead, with "I"
as the implicit subject.

Your first question is covered in this question: [In Japanese, can we say an
object asks a question?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/32436/5010)

As for your second question, yes it's sometimes possible to omit an object.
For example, you don't have to repeat the same object again in a conversation
like this:

> A: その本を読みましたか。 Did you read the book?  
>  B: いいえ、まだです。 No, not yet.  
>  A: では、読んでください。 Then please read _it_.

However many transitive verbs would make little sense if they completely lack
the object. You don't usually say "I say" without specifying what you say.
It's better to use an intransitive verb which have a similar meaning (e.g.,
there is a word "to chat" which does not require an object)

