I’ve seen posts on here before about transitive verb pairs. There are multiple “categories” of these pairs. Some of these categories contain pairs that are easy to deduce by mechanical structure, requiring no memorization (other than remembering what the other half of the pair is, so that you can figure out which category you’re dealing with). E.g. a few pairs which are very easy to reason about:
- ある/える pairs - safe to assume ある is intransitive and える is transitive
- __/す pairs - safe to assume す is the transitive one
But there is one category that’s been bothering me for a while, the う/える pair. It’s frustrating, because it appears to follow no pattern. だから… most resources (including comments here) tell you that you’ll need to memorize them. E.g.
- 焼く vs 焼ける - the short one is transitive
- 続く vs 続ける - the long one is transitive
One thing I always find about these pairs is that the う is the “older” one (i.e. it existed first, in older Japanese). So I wondered if I could find a semantic pattern, rather than a structural one. Would it really be random what order words evolve in?
Consider: when a language is young, and words are few, the words that do exist are probably more basic or common. E.g. the word water probably existed before the word lemonade, in almost every language, because water is a more basic thing than lemonade. And even in a fully evolved language, the word water is probably used far more commonly than lemonade. So I wondered if we could look at some of these う/える pairs and determine which concept is more basic/common. Let’s look at the 2 verbs from above through this frequency lens:
- 焼く vs 焼ける - I would posit that I talk more often about humans baking food (a transitive construct), than about food being baked by humans (an intransitive construct). E.g. “John is making food” seems to be a more basic/common construct than “food is being made by John”. In this pair, the short one is transitive (a more common concept for this particular verb).
- 続く vs 続ける - I would posit that I talk more often about things continuing (on their own), than about humans continuing things. But I’ll admit it’s a bit harder to come up with a concrete example sentence here as I did in the bullet above. Regardless, if my theory holds: in this pair, the short one is intransitive (a more common concept for this particular verb).
Along the same lines, consider: maybe some verbs feel more “naturally” transitive than others.
- E.g. for the verb kick, it feels naturally transitive. It is an action. Nobody can get kicked with an agent. You can say “I got kicked” without specifying who kicked you, but everybody knows there was an agent. It’s just a naturally transitive action. If a language had separate verbs for “kick (someone)” and “get kicked (by someone)”, it would make sense that the transitive one evolved first.
- On the other hand, for the verb fall, it does not feel naturally transitive. It is a state change (not an action). Things can fall on their own. They don’t really require an agent. Which means that for most languages, probably the intransitive concept of “falling” evolves before the transitive concept of “knocking something over”.
Let’s call this new perspective the agent required lens. If you think about it hard enough, it’s really not different than the frequency lens. They are two sides of the same coin. But still, let’s try the new lens:
- 焼く vs 焼ける - Food being baked naturally requires an agent. Food doesn’t make itself!
- 続く vs 続ける - Continuation does not naturally require an agent. Things continue on their own all the time!
Even though I say these lenses are two sides of the same coin, let’s check some other く/ける verbs using the agent required lens, which I think is easier to reason about. I’m going to make two groups:
Group 1: Agent Required. These are essentially actions.
For all of these, the shorter version (aka the first one that existed) is transitive.
- 焼く vs 焼ける - something cannot be baked on its own
- 解く / 解ける - something cannot be untied on its own
- 抜く / 抜ける - something cannot be extracted on its own
- 砕く / 砕ける - something cannot be smashed on its own
- 剥く / 剥ける - something cannot be peeled on its own
- 裂く / 裂ける - something cannot be torn on its own
Group 2: No Agent Required. These are essentially state changes.
For all of these, the shorter version (aka the first one that existed) is intransitive.
- 開く vs 開ける - something can open (or be open) on its own
- 続く vs 続ける - something can continue on its own
- 届く vs 届ける - something can arrive on its own (e.g. sunset)
- 付く vs 付ける - something can be stuck on its own (e.g. a leaf stuck to your shirt)
- 空く vs 空ける - something can become empty on its own (e.g. your energy)
- 近付く vs 近付ける - something can draw near on its own (e.g. the season of spring)
I will freely admit that group 2 is harder to reason about than group 1. The things in group 1 very obviously belong there. The things in group 2, it is a bit harder to be certain. Which means that maybe unless you’re 100% sure it’s group 1… then it’s probably group 2.
I will also freely admit that there are some exceptions. But I’ve been using this pattern for a while now, and my success rate on these う/える pairs has skyrocketed. So I wanted to share. Curious to hear what others think!