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 (of the gifts) is plural male, but it is not added to conformity with the old participatory purchased: We found that native speakers in the daily language do not tend to enter into participatory agreements with have in cases where they are the norm in formal writing. The same goes for reflexive verbs. For example, the formal form of this sentence has a participatory agreement passed with the direct object: She cut 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.] A previous direct object does not necessarily have to appear as a pronoun just before the oral clause. If the compound past is used in a relative clause, the modified name could be an earlier direct object (see relative pronouns). We could really say that the dress is in the female plural, because the subject of them is female plural, or because the direct object is the female plural. It doesn`t make any difference to the end result.

However, if the direct object passes before the past participates, the past participant actually corresponds to that direct object. For example, if the reflective takes an object, past participation will be in agreement with that object and not with the subject if it is before. 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. She cut herself off. She cut herself off. [Cut takes a direct object; that`s why the participatory is consistent with it.] The children looked at each other in the mirror. The children were looking at each other in the mirror.

[Watch takes a direct object; that`s why the participatory is consistent with it.] Did you see Romain`s new bike? This is it. [«Roman`s new motorcycle» is the direct object; in the first sentence, it does not conform to the verb; in the second sentence, the personal pronoun «the» is the direct object that replaces «Roman`s new motorcycle»; the old «bought» stake therefore agrees with it.] The previous participant of the compound past will always reflect the gender and number of previous direct objects (see the object`s pronouns). 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. 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: [Who/what is washed?-> «hands.» «Hands» is the direct object and is placed according to the verb, disagree.] I saw her walking through the street. I saw the cat cross the street. (In this case, the direct object, the cat, is not preceded.) gently! If the subject is indirectly the subject of a reflexive sentence, there is no agreement.

The rules of agreement of past participants are different. The fundamental principles are: Nuance: If the verbs have are used in a reflective or reciprocal way (i.e. with a reflexive pronoun), they are combined with the Being (see the 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. Thus, in some expressions, such as just infinitive, let `infinite, realize, and others, the place of the direct object is maintained by an infinitive or other complement that will always follow the main verb.