«

»

Dub
13

In standard English, for example, you can say I am or it is, but not „I am“ or „it is.“ This is because the grammar of the language requires that the verb and its subject coincide personally. The pronouns I and him are respectively the first and third person, just as the verbs are and are. The verbage form must be chosen in such a way as to have the same person as the subject, unlike the fictitious agreement based on meaning. [2] [3] In American English, for example, the expression of the United Nations is treated as singular for the purposes of concordance, although it is formally plural. Spoken French always distinguishes the plural from the second person and the plural from the first person in the formal language and from the rest of the contemporary form in all the verbs of the first conjugation (infinitive in -il) except Tout. The plural first-person form and the pronoun (us) are now replaced by the pronoun (literally: „one“) and a third person of singular verb in modern French. So we work (formally) on Work. In most of the verbs of other conjugations, each person in the plural can be distinguished between them and singular forms, again, if one uses the traditional plural of the first person. The other endings that appear in written French (i.e. all singular endings and also the third plural person of the Other as the Infinitifs in-er) are often pronounced in the same way, except in the contexts of liaison. Irregular verbs such as being, fair, all and holdings have more pronounced contractual forms than normal verbs. Although its name does not immediately reveal it, this paper is a case study on the interaction of verbal concordance in tagalog with the syntax of long-range extraction, which offers a fascinating perspective on the often expressed intuition that certain types of concordance are necessary precursors of certain types of syntactic movement.

Example of form: you want, you should, you are, you are, you can do it. Example of past forms: you would be, you should, you should, you have something, you could, you could, compared to English, Latin is an example of a very curved language. The consequences of an agreement are thus: in Hungarian, verbs have a polypersonal concordance, which means that they adhere to more than one of the arguments of the verb: not only its subject, but also its object (precision). There is a difference between the case where a particular object is present and the case where the object is indeterminate or if there is no object at all. (Adverbs have no influence on the form of the verb.) Examples: Szeretek (I love someone or something indeterminate), szeretem (I love him, she, or her, or her, specifically), szeretlek (I love you); szeret (he loves me, me, you, someone or something indeterminate), szereti (he loves him, her or her especially). Of course, names or pronouns can specify the exact object. In short, there is agreement between a verb and the person and the number of its subject and the specificity of its object (which often refers more or less precisely to the person).