Is this a mistake on WK’s part, or am I just an idiot? I would have emailed about this but I don’t know which it is and I’d appreciate some clarification if I’m wrong.
I’d love to be walked through the logic on how it’s logically possible to replace nothing, imitate nothing, and make war (on/with/against) nobody…
Transitivity has apparently been completely redefined in the Japanese->English context to mean something completely different which exists in Japanese but not English. Okay… but the actual concept of transitivity also exists in Japanese so this is just a confusing mess.
This cleared it up for me and I haven’t yet encountered any situations where her logic doesn’t apply:
This implies that the J-E concept of “tRanSiTiVitY” has no direct connection with the を particle. Things like this are why I won’t be drawing any lines in my mental sand until I can start over from scratch studying grammar in Japanese only sources.