In general, the current participant does not agree with the use of having. In the following sentence, the subject is for example the female plural and the direct object (gifts) is plural male, but no correspondence is added to the old participatory purchase: here, there is no agreement with the direct object in the female plural and the former participatory of the Know, since the direct object arrives after the past participation. We found that native speakers in the common language do not tend to enter into participatory agreements with having if they are the norm in formal writings. The same goes for reflexive verbs. For example, the formal written form of this sentence has a participatory agreement with the direct object: in these cases, the reflexive pronoun is not the direct object. In the first sentence, the farts are prepared; In the second case, the thing that is broken is the leg. And in these cases, there is no agreement on the past. 5) For semi-auxiliary verbs, there is no correspondence with the direct object, because the object always belongs to the infinitive, not the semi-auxiliary object. She cut off her hand. She cut off his hand.

[The hand is the direct object (here becomes an indirect pronodem of an object that indicates to whom the hand was cut). As the hand does not precede the participatory, there is no agreement.] But the verbs have to be approved in a very specific construction: the participatory past must agree with the direct object if the verb moves forward. gently! If the subject is indirectly the subject of a reflexive sentence, there is no agreement. In some expressions, such as just infinitive, let `infinite, realize, and others, the space of the direct object is maintained by an infinitive or other complement that will always follow the main verb. As a general rule, no agreement is reached in these expressions. Note that none of the verbs in this category (except hatch > hatched) have old entries that end in a consonant. In other words, the “agreement” of these verbs essentially applies only to the language of writing. In reality, speakers do not tend to add agreements with having in daily speech.

They probably only make these agreements by speaking carefully and thinking about the written language when they speak. So if they don`t read a script, you could generally say that the curse of French students, of the concordance of the past, is not as difficult as it is first.

Коментарите са затворени.