Entries

<entry eid="2349275" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict"> <ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp> <ent_seq>1323010</ent_seq> <k_ele> <keb>謝る</keb> <ke_pri>ichi1</ke_pri> <ke_pri>news2</ke_pri> <ke_pri>nf32</ke_pri> </k_ele> <r_ele> <reb>あやまる</reb> <re_pri>ichi1</re_pri> <re_pri>news2</re_pri> <re_pri>nf32</re_pri> </r_ele> <sense> <pos>&v5r;</pos> <pos>&vt;</pos> <pos>&vi;</pos> <gloss>to apologize (apologise)</gloss> </sense> <sense> <pos>&v5r;</pos> <pos>&vt;</pos> <pos>&vi;</pos> <misc>&dated;</misc> <gloss>to refuse</gloss> <gloss>to decline</gloss> </sense> <sense> <pos>&v5r;</pos> <pos>&vi;</pos> <misc>&dated;</misc> <gloss>to be unable to bear</gloss> <gloss>to be defeated (by)</gloss> <gloss>to be at a loss</gloss> <gloss>to be stumped (by)</gloss> </sense> <history> <audit time="2024-05-19 14:53:23" stat="A" unap="true"> <upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid> <upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> <upd_detl>Added senses.</upd_detl> <upd_refs>meikyo, sankoku, daij, chujiten</upd_refs> <upd_diff>@@ -17,0 +18 @@ +&lt;pos&gt;&amp;vt;&lt;/pos&gt; @@ -20,0 +22,15 @@ +&lt;sense&gt; +&lt;pos&gt;&amp;v5r;&lt;/pos&gt; +&lt;pos&gt;&amp;vt;&lt;/pos&gt; +&lt;misc&gt;&amp;dated;&lt;/misc&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;to refuse&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;to decline&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;/sense&gt; +&lt;sense&gt; +&lt;pos&gt;&amp;v5r;&lt;/pos&gt; +&lt;pos&gt;&amp;vi;&lt;/pos&gt; +&lt;misc&gt;&amp;dated;&lt;/misc&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;to be unable to bear&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;to be defeated (by)&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;to be at a loss&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;/sense&gt;</upd_diff> </audit> <audit time="2024-05-19 21:39:18" stat="A"> <upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid> <upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> </audit> <audit time="2025-10-04 21:36:43" stat="A" unap="true"> <upd_name>Sean McBroom</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> <upd_detl>謝る is intransitive and never takes a true direct object. You apologize to someone using に. In this sentence, the を is not marking a direct object; instead, it indicates what the apology is about and can be understood roughly as "about" or "for" in English. Japanese allows mental or abstract verbs like 謝る, 焦る, and similar verbs to use を in this way. This is also the only example sentence that uses を. I'm not suggesting which way of mapping this concept to the entries is "correct," but it's probably best to be consistent across entries (for example, tagging 焦る as transitive, or tagging this as intransitive).</upd_detl> <upd_refs>その子供はお客さんへの失礼を謝るように言われた。 The child was told to apologize for being rude to the customer.</upd_refs> <upd_diff>@@ -19,2 +19 @@ -&lt;gloss&gt;to apologize&lt;/gloss&gt; -&lt;gloss&gt;to apologise&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;to apologize (apologise)&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff> </audit> <audit time="2025-10-05 20:50:50" stat="A"> <upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid> <upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> </audit> <audit time="2025-10-06 15:24:25" stat="A" unap="true"> <upd_name>Sombrero1</upd_name> <upd_detl>When I saw this submission I was away from home, but I wanted to look into this a bit. Based purely on references there are insufficient grounds for tagging this as just intransitive. Perhaps a linguist could perform tests for transitivity here, but I sadly can't. Our best bet is most likely having this as [vt,vi].</upd_detl> <upd_refs>＞ 謝る is intransitive and never takes a true direct object. ＞ In this sentence, the を is not marking a direct object; instead, it indicates what the apology is about and can be understood roughly as "about" or "for" in English. Do you have references for this? I was unable to retrieve this sense from dictionaries. It seems very english-derived. To my knowledge only "移動や時間の経過を表す自動詞" (Meikyo) and intransitive verbs in a starting point construction (e.g. 家を出る) can take を (and still be intransitive). Also, the english translation being an intransitive construction is not a criterion. While DOJG also has also a fourth usage for を, "A particle that marks the cause of some human emotion.", 謝る doesn't really fall into that category in my eyes. The examples DOJG gives contain verbs of emotion that are frequently tagged as transitive or bitransitive by references (e.g. 喜ぶ, 恐れる, etc.). ＊ Data Massif: ｛を謝る｝＝ 524 ｛に謝る｝＝ 3899 (false hits possible) BCCWJ: ｛を；謝る｝＝ 11 ｛に〈格助詞〉；謝る｝＝ 36 References that have 自動詞 ＝ Nikkoku References that have 他動詞 ＝ Sankoku, SankokuGendaiGairai, Oukoku, Smk, Meikyo, Shinsen References that have 自他動詞 ＝ Kojien, Gakken Kokugodaijiten, Iwakoku Smk: 〈だれニ（なにヲ）謝る〉 To me the following examples, taken from various references, look perfectly transitive: 「うそを言ったことを謝る」 「人に罪を謝る」 「弟の不始末を姉が謝る」 「彼女は先生に遅刻したことを謝った」(e.g. replacing を with に here seems weird/ungrammatical to me) Interestingly my 古語 references have 謝る is intransitive. It seems 謝る came from 誤る, which was originally the intransitive pair to 過つ, which appears to have fallen out of use. (Wiktionary, Nikkoku, Koj) ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー Another problem is that the english concepts of transitive/intransitive may not perfectly map onto 他動詞 and 自動詞, as pointed out be the following usage note on wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%BB%96%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E "The terms transitive and intransitive are somewhat misleading in reference to Japanese. The English terms are generally used to refer to the syntax or structure of a sentence, and whether the verb in the sentence is followed by an object. The Japanese terms refer to the semantics or meaning of the verb, and whether the action of that verb is happening to or upon something else. The Japanese term 自動詞 (jidōshi) literally means “self-acting word”, and 他動詞 (tadōshi) literally means “other-acting word”, in reference to this semantic consideration. For instance, in English, the verb ate in the simple sentence “I ate” would be considered an intransitive verb, because it is not followed by an object. However, in the corresponding Japanese, the verb 食べた (tabeta, “ate”) in the simple sentence 私は食べた。 (“Watashi wa tabeta.”) would not be considered a 自動詞 (jidōshi), but would instead be considered a 他動詞 (tadōshi, literally “other-acting word”), as the underlying semantics or meaning of the verb 食べる (taberu, “to eat”) conceptually require an object: when one eats, one eats something, even if left unstated. This semantic focus is the underlying mechanism by which verbs in sentences like 私は食べた。 (Watashi wa tabeta. - “I ate.”) are still considered 他動詞 (tadōshi, glossed as “transitive”) even when there is no stated object (because the fundamental meaning of the verb implies action by the subject upon something else), and verbs in sentences like 道を歩く。 (Michi o aruku. - “[I] walk the street.”) are still considered 自動詞 (jidōshi, glossed as “intransitive”) even when there is an explicit object marked with the object or accusative particle を (o) (because the fundamental meaning of the verb only implies action by the subject itself in a way that does not affect the noun marked by を)." ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー ＞ for example, tagging 焦る as transitive [...] Here I see multiple references having a 自他動詞 tag, with meikyo splitting out a transitive sense. But that's an issue for another time. .</upd_refs> <upd_diff>@@ -18,0 +19 @@ +&lt;pos&gt;&amp;vi;&lt;/pos&gt; @@ -23,0 +25 @@ +&lt;pos&gt;&amp;vi;&lt;/pos&gt; @@ -34,0 +37 @@ +&lt;gloss&gt;to be stumped (by)&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff> </audit> <audit time="2025-10-06 20:34:16" stat="A" unap="true"> <upd_name>Sean McBroom</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> <upd_detl>Finding formal papers that discuss the abstract or thematic use of を, where it introduces non-affected, conceptual objects can be difficult. Most of the linguistic resources I've found aren't public and don't really touch on the topic heavily, so I'll provide my own reasoning. A transitive verb assigns a theta-role to its object, which typically undergoes or is affected by the action (a). In Japanese, however, transitivity doesn't work in exactly the same way. 他動詞 can be thought of as any verb that can take an object marked by を, but not all を are equal. For example, verbs like 焦る, 謝る, 心配する, and 驚く can take a を-marked phrase, but the "object" in these cases doesn't undergo or receive the action in the usual sense. I think that's where the confusion happens. - 謝る is syntactically intransitive because the subject's action does not affect or act upon another entity. - The を phrase (e.g., 失礼を謝る) can mark the cause, reason, stimulus, or domain of the action, not an affected object. - The English translation reflects this lack of object relation: "I apologize for the rudeness," not "I apologize the rudeness." - Therefore, even though を appears, it marks the trigger of the action rather than an object, so the verb remains intransitive in both structure and meaning.</upd_detl> <upd_refs>(a) Burzio's generalization "All and only the verbs that can assign a theta-role to the subject can assign Accusative Case to an object." (Burzio, 1986).</upd_refs> </audit> <audit time="2025-10-07 20:29:24" stat="A" unap="true"> <upd_name>Sombrero1</upd_name> <upd_detl>Before I give my take, note that I have not come into contact with government and binding theory or actual syntactical theory beyond the basics, prior to this. So I'm learning as I type. This means I don't really mean to harp on this too much, I'm more so trying to gain a better unterstanding here. ＞ The English translation reflects this lack of object relation: "I apologize for the rudeness," not "I apologize the rudeness." This cannot be regarded as an argument. If I were to take German, there "to apologize" is in fact transitively used, and the translation from Japanese would possess that feature. Yet that is not evidence for the Japanese construction involving a transitive verb. ＞ (a) Burzio's generalization "All and only the verbs that can assign a theta-role to the subject can assign Accusative Case to an object." (Burzio, 1986). ＞ A transitive verb assigns a theta-role to its object, which typically undergoes or is affected by the action (a). I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I get what this intends to prove here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are various theta roles, right? Agent, theme, goal, etc. , and they specify the relation established by the predicate to its arguments. So let me grab one of the examples and attempt to visualize my understanding. 1 [彼女(agent)]は[先生(experiencer)]に[遅刻したこと(theme)]を謝った. Here 謝る assigns the theta role "agent" to the logical subject of the clause, 先生 is assigned "experiencer" and is a dative (indirect) object, whilst 遅刻したこと is assigned "theme" and is an accusative (direct) object. So in this sentence 謝る acts as a ditransitive verb to me, and should fulfill the generalization you've brought forth. Yet a sentence like this is also perfectly fine (taken from massif): 2 [僕(agent)]は[君(goal)]に謝らなければならない。 In this sentence 謝る acts as an unergative (intransitive verb assigning an agent that acts with intention) verb. Or am I missing something? ＞ - 謝る is syntactically intransitive because the subject's action does not affect or act upon another entity. Would that not refer to semantics? Also in sentences like 1 the "excusing" definitely affects another entity, namely the "先生". Another important criterion to transitivity in semantics is volition, which is present with 謝る (unlike with 驚く), which convinces me that there is an agent-patient dynamic with the former, but not with the latter, where it would be stimulus-experiencer. Furthermore, transitivity is not really black-and-white, as thompson and hopper have pointed out in their 1980 paper on transitivity: https://romanistik.uni-freiburg.de/raible/Lehre/2006/Materialien/Hopper_Thompson.pdf I would again propose that having both tags is probably the best, or shall I say "least complicated" course of action. Transitivity tags should be given out in reference to the usage in the target language, so a Japanese verb and its transitivity must be analyzed in a Japanese framework. Hence the tags should mirror the status quo of 国語学, which it most likely wouldn't if we just tagged it as a 自動詞.</upd_detl> <upd_refs>＊ Oxford dictionary of linguistics: "‘theta roles’ Term in *Government and Binding Theory for semantic roles such as *agent or *patient: cf. case roles. Also written ‘θ-roles’: the theta stands for earlier ‘thematic’, itself derived from *theme (3) for no principled reason." So they are just semantic roles? Theta-roles are new to me, that's why I ask. ＊ Oxford dictionary of linguistics: "transitive (Construction) in which a verb is related to at least two nouns or their equivalent, whose semantic roles are characteristically those of an *agent and a *patient: e.g. that of She (agent) carried him (patient). A transitive verb is one which takes or can take such a construction: thus carry, or carry in its basic sense." .</upd_refs> </audit> <audit time="2025-10-12 05:47:45" stat="A"> <upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid> <upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> <upd_detl>It's a messy one. I think it's best just to leave it as it is for now.</upd_detl> </audit> </history> </entry>