is this good usage?

'Manipulate' is a transitive verb, which means it requires one or more objects. (That's what 'vt' means in the dictionary....the verb is transitive and needs both subject and object.)

IOW, one can't 'manipulate'; one can only 'manipulate something'.

So the first version doesn't work, but the last two do, from a grammar point of view.

The third version is starting to get wordy. What does adding 'has learned to' to the sentence accomplish? If you're going for the simple idea that she manipulates the world, the second version is better. (This is probably the one to use if short and snappy is what you're after.) If the point of the sentence is to say not only that she manipulates the world, but that it's important for the reader to know that there's a reason she's had to learn it, the third one is better. It all depends on exactly what you're tyring to convey at that moment in the narrative.

Hope this helps.

tko said:

[FONT=&quot]{John meets two strange women . . } One manipulates to protect her children; the other to uncover her past.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Can I get away with using 'manipulates' in this way? Other variations.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]
That version is fine, but I have a problem with the other three.

[/FONT]

The original version is not only acceptable, it's the best option posted IMO.

PeterL said:

[FONT=&quot]
That version is fine, but I have a problem with the other three.

One who has learned to manipulate to protect herself.
One who manipulates the world to protect herself.
One who has learned to manipulate the world to protect herself . .

Click to expand...

[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Why would you advocate turning a complete sentence into an incomplete one by adding the unnecessary pronoun 'who'?

Also, the OP used ellipses to represent the rest of his or her original sentence ('...children, the other to uncover her past'). That's a fairly standard use of ellipses.

VoireyLinger said:

The original version is not only acceptable, it's the best option posted IMO.

Click to expand...

No, it's not acceptable and therefore it's not the best option. It misuses a transitive verb. That makes it wrong. Now, if the writer chooses to use a word incorrectly on purpose (goodness knows, I do that plenty), that's fine -- as long as they know they are misusing it and choose to do so anyway, say, for effect.

But this is a grammar and syntax forum, and when someone is asking about correct usage, the answers should be based in actual grammar rather than unsubstantiated opinion.

If you look up 'manipulate' in the dictionary, you'll see that it is a transitive verb. If you look up grammar rules regarding transitive verbs, you'll see that they require an object. The sentence, 'One manipulates to protect her children,' does not have an object. It is, therefore, grammatically incorrect.

The first example leaves me wondering what she manipulates. Her purpose does not matter, but she needs to manipulate something -- reality, the people around her, the stock maket, her own memories, whatever -- to make sense. Terie's analysis is correct; as it stands, the first example is only a sentence fragment.

Your origional works fine for me, whereas, it implies the world. I like it much better than the othere more wordy two.

francist44 said:

Your origional works fine for me, whereas, it implies the world. I like it much better than the othere more wordy two.

Click to expand...

How implies 'world'? Could 'family' 'husband' 'boss' 'me'?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Terie said:

Why would you advocate turning a complete sentence into an incomplete one by adding the unnecessary pronoun 'who'?

Click to expand...

Those sentences are not correct as they were originally written, and there is no antecedent for "One". They did not stand on their own, and I missed the ellipsis, and the changes that I suggested made them sound better, but they are not right. I would have to look at the complete sentences, rather than just pieces.

The first version is fine, and reads better than the others. That something is manipulated is understood by context, and you do not have to include it in the sentence.

Do transitive infinitives need an object?

I need to manipulate.

I like to eat.

Xelebes said:

Do transitive infinitives need an object?

I need to manipulate.

I like to eat.

Click to expand...

Yes. Transitive verbs require an object. It doesn't matter whether the verb is in infinitive form or has been conjugated.

'Manipulate' is a transitive verb.

'Eat' is not a transitive verb.

Merriam-Webste's Collegiate Dictionary said:

manipulate (vt)

Click to expand...

'vt' = verb transitive

Transitive verbs at yourdictionary.com

Transitive verbs at about.com

Transitive and instransitive verbs at the University of Ottawa

Transitive verbs at Daily Grammar

Terie said:

How implies 'world'? Could 'family' 'husband' 'boss' 'me'?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Click to expand...

manipulates to protect her children - for me a mom would include anyone, not just the two strangers

Terie said:

Yes. Transitive verbs require an object. It doesn't matter whether the verb is in infinitive form or has been conjugated.

'Manipulate' is a transitive verb.

'Eat' is not a transitive verb.



'vt' = verb transitive

Transitive verbs at yourdictionary.com

Transitive verbs at about.com

Transitive and instransitive verbs at the University of Ottawa

Transitive verbs at Daily Grammar

Click to expand...

Um, infinitives. We're talking infinitives.

francist44 said:

manipulates to protect her children - for me a mom would include anyone, not just the two strangers

Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. The question is about grammar for someone's query letter to an editor who knows grammar.

Besides, I was making a point about the foolishness of leaving out grammatically required words just for the sake of not being 'wordy'. You see how you understood what I wrote? And yet I bet you wouldn't advocate writing like that in a query letter.

Xelebes said:

Um, infinitives. We're talking infinitives.

Click to expand...

What? You're the one who brought up infinitives, which is completely unrelated to the question. Among other things, the verb has been conjugated in the OP's sample sentences. All verbs have an infinitive form, and all verbs can be conjugated. It's not a question of 'infinitive' vs 'transtitive'. One (infinitive) is form, the other (transitive) is type.

We're talking about what type of verb 'manipulate' is, not what form the verb is in the sentence. As I said before, 'manipulate' is a transitive verb, regardless of whether it's in infinitive form or has been conjugated.

I would suggest that you actually look at the links I provided. They explain quite clearly what a transitive verb is. I'm not expressing an opinion here; I'm actually presenting grammatical facts that are easy to verify with a wee bit of research.

And I'm harping on this because the question isn't about a line in someone's manuscript, where a single misused word won't make a whopping lot of difference.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A QUERY LETTER.

A query letter ought not to have any grammatical errors unless they're very intentionally made for a very specific effect.

tko said:

She manipulates everything involving her children. Corporations, people, her husband. That's makes it a long sentence and blows the query.

But the manipulation is important, a large part of the book is about this. You have two women, a guy stuck in the middle, each women is manipulating events, circumstances, and him.

So, she's a master manipulator. They're both master manipulators. And he's between them.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that WHAT is being manipulated is not only grammatically correct (which might or might not be important to you), but also says a lot about a character in a few words. I really like the change you've made above.

Take a woman who's just plain manipulative, a technique she employs all the time against all comers, in situations good, bad, and indifferent. This character isn't going to be very sympathetic.

Take another woman who's been abused by her husband, and she'll manipulate anything to protect her children, but that's the extent of her manipulative practices. She's a much more sympathetic character.

So saying what these women manipulate and why can be excellent shorthand for characterisation in a query letter. In both cases, we get a fairly clear picture of these women with just a few brushstrokes.

Few words isn't really the ultimate arbiter for a query letter. The right number of words with real punch and that can server multiple purposes...that can lead to an effective query letter. If adding a mere two or three or even four words adds a whole 'nuther layer to your summary/synopsis, that's a good use of a few extra words.

Terie said:

What? You're the one who brought up infinitives, which is completely unrelated to the question. Among other things, the verb has been conjugated in the OP's sample sentences. All verbs have an infinitive form, and all verbs can be conjugated. It's not a question of 'infinitive' vs 'transtitive'. One (infinitive) is form, the other (transitive) is type.

We're talking about what type of verb 'manipulate' is, not what form the verb is in the sentence. As I said before, 'manipulate' is a transitive verb, regardless of whether it's in infinitive form or has been conjugated.

I would suggest that you actually look at the links I provided. They explain quite clearly what a transitive verb is. I'm not expressing an opinion here; I'm actually presenting grammatical facts that are easy to verify with a wee bit of research.

And I'm harping on this because the question isn't about a line in someone's manuscript, where a single misused word won't make a whopping lot of difference.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A QUERY LETTER.

A query letter ought not to have any grammatical errors unless they're very intentionally made for a very specific effect.

Click to expand...

Which is just pure prescriptivism. Objectless transitive infinitives are innate in English - we say it all the time and are completely understood. This isn't Latin here.

Now, there are a few conditions here. If there is something specific being manipulated, then the object follows right after the verb. However, if there is no specific object or it can't be defined, then there is no object listed. The other condition is if a judgment is being cast upon the subject, then it is okay to leave off the object.

Fortunately, editors not only know grammar, we know prescriptivism is often not the way good writers use it, and shouldn't be. "Manipulates" is perfectly fine used in the original manner, and is also perfectly grammatical. Methinks some do not understand how much most editors, agents, and readers hate English teachers and much of what they teach. Much of it is bad, leads to poor writing, and is only correct within halls of ivy.

I don't have a problem with the first sentence if a previous sentence describes the women as manipulative or something comparable. Otherwise, it sounds weird and jargony to me. JMO.

In my incarnation as Conan the Grammarian, I have to agree that manipulates needs an object. I also agree with the nonprescriptivists that it could under some circumstances be left to be understood (see preceding paragraph). But, I think just from looking at what different posters have guessed or suggested the implied object might be, you'd have more control over the effect if you specified something instead of letting the verb float in freefall.

Xelebes said:

Objectless transitive infinitives are innate in English - we say it all the time and are completely understood. This isn't Latin here.

Click to expand...

Only when it's clear. Here are your original sentences.

Xelebes said:

Do transitive infinitives need an object?

I need to manipulate.

I like to eat.

Click to expand...

So let's see. In the second case, yes, it's completely obvious what the object is, and therefore it can be considered to be implied. 'Food' is the ONLY logical choice, and if the writer meant something other than 'food', they'd really have to say it. You can't write 'I like to eat' and then say, 'Well, it's obvious I meant "nails". That's implied, don't you see?''

Now the first one. Do you actually contend that what's being manipulated is obvious, clear, and successfuly implied in the sentence 'I need to manipulate'? The answer is 'no'. What do you need to manipulate?

Your spouse?

Your company's financial figures?

Your chiropractic patient's back?

Your spaceship's controls?

So, yeah, 'manipulate' needs an object when the object isn't completely clear. And as much as folks keep saying it's obvious in the OP's first sentence, it's really not. There is a variety of possible choices that make sense within context, each of which puts a slightly different spin on the characters', um, character. Therefore, it looks like a word was left out accidentally, which might not be the kicker in a query letter, but then again, it might be.

Well, I am going to confuse matters

I think the issue is not about transitive verbs and objects, but whether or not "manipulate" is a catenative verb - a verb that that can use another verb as an object. An example might be: "I love to win". I don't know the answer, but the first part of the sentence makes sense to me.

I did not understand to whom the 'her' was referring in the second part of the sentence, however. I also was unsure whether the second woman was manipulative in order to discover something or expose it.

I agree with Terie.

You can have a lot of verbs that are both transitive or intransitive (e.g. change):

circumstances change (intran)
he will change the world (tran)

But manipulate isn't one of them. It's purely transitive: it needs that object.


Personaly I'm all for just changing verb to noun here:

She mastered manipulation...

I like your first sentence, TKO. The man is referenced, thus we know who the woman maniupulates in each instance. You're doing fine. Just keep writing.