On the WordReference page for "attendre", one of the entries is as follows:
attendre vtr (compter sur une action)
Et maintenant qu'attendez-vous de lui ?
And now what do you expect of him?
The "vtr" tells me that this entry is for a transitive version of the verb "attendre". This means that it takes an object.
But, from looking at that first line of the entry, I don't know if it can take a direct object, or an indirect object, or both. And, if it can take an indirect object, I don't know if the indirect object will be introduced by an "à" or a "de".
The example sentence shows that "de lui" is an indirect object, but I expect example sentences to be extra confirmation of information already communicated in the dictionary entry. Also, the example sentence doesn't tell me if the object is always an indirect object using "de", or if instead a direct object, or an indirect object with "à", could be used.
1) By looking at this dictionary entry, how do I know if "attendre" in this entry takes a direct or indirect object (or both), and supposing that it can take an indirect object, if the indirect object will use "à" or "de" (or possibly both) ?
2) Some of WordReference's other entries for "attendre" are also transitive, but they explicitly say if the objects are direct or indirect, and if indirect, which of à or de introduces the indirect object. For example:
attendre [qqn/qch] (vtr)tells me that attendre for that entry takes a direct object
s'attendre à [qch] (pron + prép)tells me that attendre for that entry takes an indirect object introduced with à
Why does WordReference's entry for
attendre vtr (compter sur une action) not give more information, unlike other entries it gives for attendre? Notably, the TLFi in LPH's answer below has an entry for WR's
attendre (competer sur une action), but it explains all the objects -- why did WordReference not do the same?
That is, perhaps it is an omission in the WR dictionary? Or perhaps WR considered this usage too obvious to be listed? Or perhaps WR considered this usage to be too rare and thus not important? Or perhaps it would be impossible to list all or most entries for attendre that people use, and so dictionaries have to make a decision on what to list and what not to list, and sometimes they make entries like
attendre vtr (compter sur une action) that intentionally leaves out information, to indicate meaning, but intentionally leaves out the many forms (eg, what indirect objects it takes, etc) that that verb can be used with that meaning? Or perhaps some other reason?