Agreement Direct Object

The rules of agreement of past participants are different. The basics are: [Who/what is washed?-> «They.» The subject is therefore the recipient of the appeal, there is consensus.] If there is a direct object that is the recipient of the action, then the rules of the agreement are the same as to have: the past participant agrees with the direct object when placed in front of the verb and does not accept if placed after. For a long time, banning students from the past French participatory agreement was not as difficult as it was first. There are two basic principles, each with a nuance: 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. In the sentence above, the purchased are written with one to match the direct object the gifts. 2. In the case of verbs usually combined to have, the former participants` office never agrees with the subject. However, it will agree with all previous direct objections.

In such cases, you should therefore pay attention to the pronoun of the direct object: i.e. which pronoun represents «the product purchased», etc. Gently! If the subject is indirectly the subject of a reflexive sentence, there is no agreement. In the previous section, we found that the past corresponds to the theme of reflexive verbs. But in fact, one could say that it corresponds to the direct object, since the whole point of a reflexive verb is that the subject and the object are essentially «the same». So, in a case like this, if the reflective takes an object, past participation will be in agreement with that object rather than with the subject if it moves forward. However, if in these cases the direct object is placed before the verb, then the past participation corresponds to that direct object: however, if the direct object passes before the past participatory, the past participation actually corresponds to that direct object. For example: Nuance: If the verbs holdings are used in a reflexive or reciprocal way (i.e. with a reflective pronodem), they are combined with the Stretch (see excipients).

However, they will only agree with a previous direct object. It should be determined whether the reflexive pronoun is a direct or indirect object pronoun. In general, the participatory precedent does not agree with the use of have. In the following sentence, for example, the subject is the female plural and the direct object (of the gifts) is plural male, but no concordance is added to the former participatory of money: in fact, it is said that the past participation corresponds to the direct object, it turns out to be a better explanation. This is better because then the same rule explains what happens in some rarer cases of reflexive verbs, where the reflexive pronoun is not really the direct object. Reflexive If the subject is the direct object of the verb, the past participation of the compound past will be in agreement with it (see Reflective). 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 past participatory concordance with the direct object: there are some cases of reflexive verbs in which the reflexive pronoun is in fact an indirect object, usually with the meaning of «for myself,» for oneself, «of itself», etc. For example: I saw the cross the street.

I saw the cat cross the street. (In this case, the direct object, the cat, is not preceded.) 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.