I know that an intransitive verb accepts only one argument, i.e., the subject. So, such verbs do not need a complement. But how could one understand the concept of an intransitive complementizer, in Chomskyan syntax? After all, isn’t the very nature of complementizers to accept a complement?
Edit: According to Andrew Radford, "none of the English finite complementisers (e.g. if, that,
that and the null finite complementiser ∅ found in main clauses) are transitive". So, in what sense is the complementizer that, for example, intransitive? How does it differ from other complementizers that could be classified as transitive in other languages?