Is there a good way to visualize the difference between 続く and 続ける? Both are translated as “to continue,” and the WaniKani explanation is:
"[続ける] is like 続く except for now you’re the one doing the continuing. Unfortunately, there’s no good way to differentiate the two “continues” using just the meaning, but you can think of it this way: With ける, you really care about continuing this thing so you are continuing it (doing the action of continuing). With く you’re just like "that’s coo’ if it continues, but I don’t really care…
I think I’ve got a good handle on this, but I’m not sure, and a brief internet search didn’t really help me see if I had it right in my head and transitive/intransitive verbs are difficult. Is there a good way to think about these two verbs? (example sentences would be helpful too if possible)
Are you struggling about transitive / intransitive in general or just about 続く vs. 続ける ? Because 続ける / 続く is a normal transitive / intransitive pair, nothing special about it.
Transitive 続ける : someone continue something : 誰かが何かを続ける
Intransitive 続く : something continues by itself : 何かが続く
“Something” can be a situation, a process, an activity, a state
続く is intransitive, which means it isn’t transferring any effects. The subject is the one doing the continuing. The subject will most often be phenomena, without external action causing it to continue. “Population decline continued.” “Evacuation continued.”
続ける is transitive, which means you are continuing to do something. What follows will usually be a verbal noun or noun-kanji compound that implies some kind of action (like 勉強, “study”). “I continued to study.” “I continued my game.” “We are going to continue the evacuation.”
In English, of course, these are both “continue,” which can be used both transitively and intransitively. There are unfortunately (for learners coming from either language to the other) many cases where Japanese and English don’t line up in terms of having two separate verbs for transitive/intransitive use, or just one that can be used for both.
If the concept itself is giving you trouble, I think it’s something that’s genuinely essential to understand in your own language before tackling another. Otherwise it’s just going to keep giving you trouble.
The transitive/intransitive difference is basically just “Does it do it to something else? (transitive) Or does it do something to/by itself? (intransitive)”
This one’s always irritated me. It’s like, Jaered Koichi knows perfectly well the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs - why on earth did he forget it for this particular pair?