Cod Agreement French

8 Apr

However, there is still the possibility of a direct opposition agreement in accordance with point 31.2 above. Of course, there are a whole series of cases involving previous French holdings that require special attention, but these are not exactly exceptions; instead, it`s more like little tricks where you have to think a little about what is the element of the sentence cod or not, or if the agreement makes sense. There is no doubt that French is a language that is primarily motivated by importance. Pronoun verbs are always conjugated with help, but the consent rule of the former participatory applies as if it were combined with assets. The art of agreement is to recognize the COD and the role of the reflexive prognosc. Of course, if the noun is replaced by an object pronoun, this pronoun is always direct and the reflexive pronoun is always indirect, so there is no agreement with it. However, as the direct object precedes the verb, past participation is subject to a direct object agreement. Pronoun verbs have a reflexive pronoun that refers to the subject, and this reflexive pronoun represents either the direct object or the indirect object of the verb. Here is the tricky part: the agreement is only necessary if the reflexive pronoun is a direct object; if it is indirect, there is no agreement. So to know if current participants need to agree, you need to determine the function of the reflexive prognosis.

That`s how it works. And veiled, we have come to the end of our lesson on the Past French participatory agreement. Again, there are a few subtleties that cause endless discussions in grammar forums, but these are special cases that are not used every day, and my goal is not to see the head explode. So we`re going to keep him here! The next lesson concerns French adjectives. You`ve probably noticed, but can you explain why there is no agreement in the second example, when the COD (pizza) is obviously in front of the verb? 1. If there is a COD other than the pronoun, the agreement is only implemented if the COD is placed before the verb. DONNER is a good way to remember that COD pronouns influence the agreement of past partitioners in the composed past, but not IOC pronouns. Note the difference: we will focus on the agreement of the French past if it is used with an auxiliary protocol “be” or “have” (as part of a composite tension). To make things easier, we will keep in mind that the verb has only one grammatical subject, the other cases being dealt with in the previous lesson via verb Agreement. In the second example, however, the subtlety is that pizza is NOT the COD of the verb emissary. I didn`t send the pizza, I sent someone to pick up the pizza. So it is the COD of the verb, and any correspondence with this verb would be applicable (but it is infinitive).

3. If the Pronoun is a COD, then there is an agreement with the subject (this is because the Pronoun has always placed itself in front of the verb anyway). It is clear that in these examples there is a clear COD in the sentence, so we must look at its place to decide whether we should conclude the agreement: theory is the complement of indirect object. This is characterized by preposition in this theory. The IOC has no influence on the match between sex or number in your game. 2. If the Pronoun is a IOC, then there is no agreement.