The word is “raise” used intransitively. As I was fantasizing about having quad 60 machine guns mounted under the hood of my car to deploy whenever I was irritated by other drivers, I said to myself, “…. so they’ll raise up.” I realized that I was using a transitive verb ‘raise’ intransitively, the guns would “raise” on their own.
Puzzling over that, my thoughts turned to my book English Verb Classes and Alternations by Beth Levin. I found ‘raise’ in the index and the second reference pointed to this use of a transitive verb intransitively, i.e. why not use the transitive either with a subject e.g. “I can raise the guns up” or passively, “The guns will be raised up,” or use the intransitive, “The guns will rise up”?
So this verb in this usage is under the rubric (= something under which a thing is classes) Alternations Involving Arguments Within the VP, subgroup “Dative Alternations”, subsubgroup: Non-Alternating to Only:, section d. Verbs of Putting With a Specified Direction. The last includes drop, hoist, lift, lower, raise.
The following discussion is quite opaque. I have read only the introduction to this book and found it fascinating, her discussion of word groups like touch, break, cut, hit, viz. I can touch you and hit you and cut you on your arm but cannot *break you on your arm; and a host of examples follow. The point of the book is how linguists account for such groupings and limits. Each of hundreds of categories have their [yes, their] own bibliography. Yes, kiddos, scholars write a lot about these kind [yes, kind] of things. In fact, I introduced these ‘alternations’ to a class one year and had them do exercises on it. Why? To show them the complexity of language way beyond the stupid verb endings they are made to memorize to no utter use.