In the end of Parshas Vayeishev, the Pasuk says the Sar HaMashkim 'Lo zachar es yosef' and 'Vayishkacheihu'. Rashi explains that the dual terminology indicates that he forgot him on that day (the day he was freed) and after that as well.
Ibn Ezra says that 'Lo zachar' means that he didn't mention him, and 'vayishkacheihu' means he forgot him b'lev too.
The Avi Ezri (who explains the Ibn Ezra in many editions of mikra'os gedolos) explains that Ibn Ezra's issue is that the word 'es' can't be used with an intransitive verb. So he instead explains the word zachar as 'verbalize'.
So it seems that IE holds that 'remember' is intransitive, while 'mention' is transitive, and that 'es' indicates an object. I can hear why 'remember' is intransitive--after all, nothing is being done to Yosef. Rather, 'Yosef' is merely a description of the rememberance.
So I have 3 primary questions:
1-What would Rashi say in response?
2-I noticed in the shir shel yom of shabbos we say 'Uch'sil lo yavin es zos'--isn't this comparable to zachar (both are not really 'acting on' the supposed object)--yet it says 'es'?
3-If my understanding of why 'zachar' is intransitive, is 'mention' also intransitive?