DuckFiasco:Just take a little time to learn this smallish handful of common verbs (~40) where the transitivity isn't what English speakers expect. Then you'll be speaking bonegan Esperanton instead of merely kompreneblan Esperanton

Hope that helps!

I will try my best.

Mi malstreĉas. ~ La akvo bolas.

I have been studying this topic a little more. I must be missing something because some transitive verbs seem as though they don't have an object.

From the Tekstaro:
The water started to boil, the meat fell off.
La akvo ekbolis, la viando defalis.

The soldier started to boil.
La soldatoj ekbolis.

In Esperanto we can say La akvo bolas.
Source

Then I should be able to say:
I will relax.
Mi malstreĉos.

I am relaxing.
Mi malstreĉas.

I relaxed.
Mi malstreĉis.

The word malstreĉi is a transitive verb like boli. Therefore, if we can say la akvo bolas, then we should be able to say la akvo malstreĉas, and also by extension, Mi malstreĉas.

I can't see the difference. What am I missing. Your input is always appreciated. I am trying to be a proficient speaker. I don't just want to be a "bonan tagon" speaker.

Transitive means can take an object. Boli isn't transitive.

You can't ask kion bolis la akvo (what did the water boil).

sudanglo:Transitive means can take an object. Boli isn't transitive.

Oh. Sorry. I thought that boli was transitive.

Okay. Fini is listed as a transitive verb. Let's use that example.

From the tekstaro:
Mi finis.
...ni neniam finos.
Li ne finis.
Cetere, mi baldaŭ finos.
Mi jam finis.

If these are exceptable and fini is a transitive verb then it should be okay to say mi malstreĉas to mean that I am relaxing.

What am I missing?

Alkanadi:Fini is listed as a transitive verb..
From the tekstaro:
Mi finis. ..What am I missing?

The object of fini might be implicit, e.g. the speech to the 4th World Congress which Zamenhof was finishing, which is why this two-word utterance began the last paragraph.

Miland:The object of fini might be implicit

That is what I am thinking. Transitive verbs can have an implicit direct object. For example, mi malstreĉas should be grammatically correct based on the examples that I have given.

If I say mi malstreĉas, the implicit direct object is myself.

Alkanadi:

DuckFiasco:Just take a little time to learn this smallish handful of common verbs (~40) where the transitivity isn't what English speakers expect. Then you'll be speaking bonegan Esperanton instead of merely kompreneblan Esperanton

Hope that helps!

I will try my best.

Don't feel too bad, Alkanadi. I have a similar stumbling block about transitive vs intransitive verbs. It's funny, though; I have very few problems remembering which verb goes in which group in Russian!
One way I've come up with to help is when learning vocab: when I learned boli I didn't learn it as just "to boil" but "to be boiling" and "fini" as not just "to finish" but "to bring to an end".

Or else learn them in phrases: Fini ion; to finish something. Akvo bolas je 100 gradoj. Water boils at 100 degrees.

Alkanadi:

Miland:The object of fini might be implicit

That is what I am thinking. Transitive verbs can have an implicit direct object. For example, mi malstreĉas should be grammatically correct based on the examples that I have given.

If I say mi malstreĉas, the implicit direct object is myself.

The thing is, because the direct object is implicit, there's no constraints on it. When you say "mi finis", we know that you finished whatever you were doing, but only context might tell us what. You'd need to be in a very particular situation for me to even guess that you meant implicitly "mi finis min" !!!!!

The same is true of "mi malstreĉas". It would be incredibly confusing to hear that if you meant "mi malstreĉas min".

I also think that due to how some very common words (like fini) are used, you're more likely to hear them with implicit objects, because of that common usage that everyone is familiar with. This is not true of words like malstreĉi.

EldanarLambetur:I also think that due to how some very common words (like fini) are used, you're more likely to hear them with implicit objects, because of that common usage that everyone is familiar with. This is not true of words like malstreĉi.

I will defiantly try to memorise these ~40 common transitive verbs and use them in accordance with how the Esperanto community is most comfortable.

However, just for the sake of argument, I can find multiple examples in the tekstaro of transitive verbs being used as intransitive verbs because of an implicit direct object. I don't think it is fair to tell someone they are wrong when it is in the tekstaro. Just my two cents. Thanks for all your help. I think I get the point now.

Alkanadi:Mi malstreĉas. ~ La akvo bolas.

I have been studying this topic a little more. I must be missing something because some transitive verbs seem as though they don't have an object.

From the Tekstaro:
The water started to boil, the meat fell off.
La akvo ekbolis, la viando defalis.

The soldier started to boil.
La soldatoj ekbolis.

In Esperanto we can say La akvo bolas.
Source

Then I should be able to say:
I will relax.
Mi malstreĉos.

I am relaxing.
Mi malstreĉas.

I relaxed.
Mi malstreĉis.

The word malstreĉi is a transitive verb like boli. Therefore, if we can say la akvo bolas, then we should be able to say la akvo malstreĉas, and also by extension, Mi malstreĉas.

I can't see the difference. What am I missing. Your input is always appreciated. I am trying to be a proficient speaker. I don't just want to be a "bonan tagon" speaker.

Boli is INtransitive. La soldato bolas is incorrect, unless we're talking about a soldier in a huge cauldron of water over a fire........
the correct forms: mi malstrecxigxas, maltrecxigxos, malstrecxigxis.