I notice that we distinctively define verbs which take accusative case as "transitive verbs" and those which don't as "intransitive". Now among intransitive, we have several possibilities:
As far as I know, no special name is given to verbs taking any of the case above. So, why is accusative case the only one seen to be worthy of a specific word for verbs taking that case?
Transitive verbs and their accusative complements are special in that they participate in syntactic alternations such as the following.
1. Sie bedrohte den Kritiker.
2. Der Kritiker wurde bedroht.
3. der bedrohte Kritiker
4. das Bedrohen des Kritikers
The accusative complement of the transitive verb (1) also appears as: the subject of a passive sentence (2), a noun modified by a participial adjective (3), a genitive following a nominalized verb (4).
Other types of complements do not participate in such alternations. For instance, substituting drohen, which has a dative complement, for bedrohen:
1'. Sie drohte dem Kritiker.
2'. Dem Kritiker wurde gedroht.
3'. *der gedrohte Kritiker
4'. #das Drohen des Kritikers
In the passive, dative remains dative (2'); the participial adjective cannot be used attributively (3'); and the genitive following a nominalized verb is understood as referring to the subject (i.e. it is the critic doing the threatening, 4').
Well, accusative transitivity is the most common trait of all languages in the world (there are, as always, exceptions).
It's also the most basic way to form fundamental sentences in most European languages, and you could argue that everything else is a special case.
That is probably enough reason to find a generic term for that fact.
You should note, however, that there is more than one definition of transitivity, one - the most light of them - simply the fact that a verb needs an (any) object, while the strictest one is asking for an object in accusative that can form the subject of the same sentence in passive.
