I know the verb 'eliminate' is used only as a transitive verb.
However, I have read some articles which use the verb as an intransitive verb, without any objects.
Your dog should find a time and place to eliminate.
In this sentence, the writer used the meaning of 'eliminate' is to get rid of dung or urine from the dog's body. But based on grammar, 'eliminate' is a transitive verb, and so here, to eliminate is for a adjective role, which modify an antecedent at the rear.
For any transitive verb to modify an antecedent, the antecedent must be the object of the verb. Let's say, "they are our enemies to eliminate." Here, our enemies to eliminate came from 'to eliminate our enemies' because 'eliminate' is a transitive verb. Then from the sentence 'your dog should find a time and place to eliminate.', we can say the meaning a time and place to eliminate came from to eliminate a time and place. If the verb were able to be used as both a transitive and intransitive verb, there would be no problems.
As a time to kill and a time to die are definitely different, in my opinion, 'a time and place to eliminate' is wrong expression. What do you think? Plz, explain it based on English grammar not on any colloquial explanation.
Thanks for all the interests in my question.
- you can find that comment very easily through google searching.
- yes, in the sentence, the meaning is the same as 'expel'. and as you can see 'expel' is also used only as transitive verb, so it has an objective 'waste'
- as I mentioned above, I understand what the meaning is. My question is whether it is correct or not based on English grammar.
- for colloquial usage, we can sometimes remove some words from correct sentences. but, we can not use ellipsis at will if there may be misunderstandings especially based on grammar and it comes to a grammar question. 'a place to eliminate' can be understood as 'a place to get rid of' not as 'a place to make one's excreta be expelled'