On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

There is something I can't understand, something which I think I had asked sometime ago, but I still have trouble understanding..

There are verbs which can't take an object.

And there are verbs which can take an object..

But are there verbs which always must have an object ?

At another thread I read:

'oqranD:
> The grammatical difference is that {rang} can take an object (the
> thing the subject is responsible for) -- and it would be weird for it
> not to have an object

So, this means that there are verbs which must necessarily take an object, right ? Verbs like {rang}, verbs like {DIl}.

Am I right ? Could someone clarify this matter ?

In addition to the other examples given so far, there's also this bit, from https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/qepa-chamah-losdich-new-words/

The lack of an expressed object (the specific weight) is not a problem. It may be weird or pointless to say {ngI' muD}, but it's not ungrammatical.

The gloss for {ngI'} is "have a weight of", but even though the English gloss has a preposition at the end which presumably needs an object, you can still use {ngI'} on its own. Presumably {ngI' muD} means something like "the atmosphere has weight" (as opposed to weightless air in an unpressurized cabin, perhaps). So it seems that it's not wrong per se to use verbs without objects, even verbs that strongly suggest needing one. It's just unusual and possibly confusing.