another.

A transitive act cannot extend to another unless it subsists in its agent, since it must have an agent.

This is known through revelation and reason. As for revelation, speakers of Arabic—the language in which the Quran was revealed—and indeed speakers of other languages agree that when someone says:

“So-and-so stood up and sat down,”

and says:

“So-and-so ate the food and drank the beverage,”

the transitive verb must contain what the intransitive verb contains, and more. Both sentences are verbal sentences, and each contains a verb and an agent; the second differs by having an object as well. Just as the intransitive construction contains a verb and an agent, the transitive sentence likewise contains a verb and an agent, with the addition of a direct object.

Suppose someone were to say:

“The second sentence contains no act subsisting in the agent, as the first sentence does. Rather, the verbs ‘ate’ and ‘drank’ put the object in the accusative case without first being connected to the agent.”

The error of such a statement would be evident. Rather, one should say:

“This verb is connected first to the agent, just as ‘stood up’ and ‘sat down’ are, and then extends to the object. It therefore contains what the intransitive verb contains, with the additional feature of transitivity.”

This is clear: no two speakers of the language would disagree about it.