Agreement of past Participle

Agreement of past Participle

Example: Here, I went to school. [first person singular of “being” + partizip passed from “all”]. All composite times (such as the compound past, the perfect future, and the past condition) consist of two parts: an auxiliary participle and a past participle. Past participles usually refer to verbal infinitives. Infinitives that end in -er, for example, usually omit this ending and replace “é”: Many people want to abolish the direct correspondence of objects – what do you think? Read the article and discuss on Facebook: For a long time, the curse of French students, past participle agreement is not as difficult as it seems at first glance. There are two basic rules, each with a nuance: in fact, the claim that the participation of the past coincides with the direct object turns out to be a better explanation. This is better because the same rule then explains what happens for some rarer cases of reflexive verbs where the reflexive pronoun is not really the direct object. This is the simplest case. With normal (i.e. non-reflexive) verbs that assume to be, past participation always coincides with the subject. So: If there is a direct object that is the recipient of the action, then the rules of agreement are the same as in have: the past participle corresponds to the direct object when it is in front of the verb and does not correspond if it is placed after it. In the compound past, the partizip of the past remains masculine and singular.

1. In the case of verbs that are usually conjugated with being (the so-called “movement verbs”; see auxiliary words), the past tense of the participle in number and gender corresponds to the subject: in general, the past participle does not correspond to anything when having is used. For example, in the following sentence, the subject is feminine plural and the direct object (of gifts) is masculine plural, but to the past participle purchased: It has cut no correspondence is added. (She cuts herself.) [Cut takes a direct object; therefore, the participle corresponds to se.] Note that none of the verbs in this category (with the exception of hatching > hatching) have past participles that end in a consonant. In other words, the “correspondence” of these verbs basically applies only to the written language. If the subject of the verb is also the subject of the action, the parzip of the past coincides with the subject. The most common reflexive verb in which the previous section could change its pronunciation is to sit > it sat. In most other common reflexive verbs, the partizip of the past tense ends with a vowel.

For example, in she got dressed, the extra -e does not change the pronunciation. We found that native French speakers in the everyday language are not inclined to enter into participatory agreements made with having when they are the norm in formal writing. The same goes for reflexive verbs. For example, the formal written form of this sentence has a past participle correspondence with the direct object: [Who/what is washed? –> “They”. So the subject is the receiver of action, there is unity.] For example, the female form of fallen (fallen) fell; the plural form of alle went. As you might expect, we don`t add another -s if the previous section already ends with -s. Thus, the partizip past from sitting (sitting) sitting remains in the masculine plural (although it becomes seated or seated in the feminine singular and plural). French partizip past: French prepositional verbs have no direct object, but indirect, so no correspondence: I wrote to him (even of him is a girl, because the verb is write to) 2.

In the case of verbs, which are usually conjugated with having, the participation of the past never coincides with the subject. However, he will agree with any previous direct object. Thus, a number of common verbs have irregular parptipies of the past, the forms of which are worth remembering: in this case, the leg comes before the verb and therefore the past partizip is feminine, although the subject it is masculine. In reality, however, speakers do not tend to add agreements with having in everyday language. Only if they speak carefully and think about the written language do they make these agreements when they speak. So, if they didn`t read a scripture, people would usually say: without changing the pronunciation of the parody of the past. Have you seen Romain`s new bike? He bought it here. [“Romain`s new motorcycle” is the direct object; in the first movement, it is not a correspondence after the verb; in the second movement, the personal pronoun “the” is the direct object and replaces “Roman`s new motorcycle”; the past participle “bought” therefore agrees with this.] She cut off her hand.. .