For a long time, the curse of the students of French, the agreement of the past participle is not as difficult as it seems at first glance. There are two basic rules, each with a nuance: What is the direct object here? The. Where it is: before the verb to be, so that there is a correspondence between the direct object and the past partizip I brushed them to myself, is the correct answer (and not as written above). What is the direct object? Answer the question, what did I brush? my teeth, so the direct object is “bumps” Where is it? So according to the verb to be no match! Brushed! But the verbs to have need agreement in a very specific construction: the past participle must correspond to the direct object if it precedes the verb. 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. Many people want to abolish the direct object agreement – what do you think? Read the article and discuss on Facebook: Rule: Agreement between the SUBJECT and the PAST PARTICIPLE Attention! If the subject is the indirect object of a reflexive sentence, no agreement takes place. Of course, when the noun is replaced by an object pronoun, that pronoun is always direct and the reflexive pronoun is always indirect, so there is no agreement with the latter. However, since the direct object now precedes the verb, the past participle is subject to the direct correspondence of the object. In some expressions, such as doing + infinitive, leaving + infinitive, realizing and others, the place of the direct object is held by an infinitive or other complement that always follows the main verb. As a general rule, no agreement is reached in these expressions. She cut off her hand. (She cut off her hand.) [The hand is the direct object (here becomes an indirect object pronoun that indicates which hand has been cut).
Since the hand is not preceded by the participle, there is no correspondence.] 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 don`t read a scripture, people would usually say: In general, the previous section doesn`t agree with anything when having it is used. For example, in the following sentence, the subject is feminine plural and the direct object (of gifts) is masculine plural, but no agreement is added to the past participle purchased: pronominal 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`s the trick: consent is only required if the reflexive pronoun is a direct object; if it is indirect, there is no agreement. Thus, to know whether past participation should coincide, it is necessary to determine the function of the reflexive pronoun. Here`s how. 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 correspondence of past participle with the direct object: in these cases, the reflexive pronoun is not the direct object. In the first sentence, what is prepared is pasta; in the second case, the thing that breaks is the leg. And in these cases, there is no agreement on the past of the participle.
Nuance: Some verbs can be used with direct objects, in this case they are conjugated with have (see auxiliary words). When these verbs are conjugated with have, they conform to the agreement rule for have verbs (below). ** However, there is still the possibility of a direct object agreement according to 31/2 above. 5) In the case of semifinal verbs, there is no correspondence with the direct object, since the object always belongs to the infinitive, not to the semifinal verb. First of all, the question of “what”. When we say that the past section “coincides”, we mean that, just like a normal adjective, it changes form depending on whether it is masculine or feminine, singular or plural. The children looked at each other in the mirror. (The children looked in the mirror.) [Watch takes a direct object; therefore, the participle corresponds to se.] However, if in these cases the direct object precedes the verb, then the past participation coincides with this direct object: a number of common verbs have irregular past partipies, whose forms are worth recalling: however, if the direct object is in front of the past participle, the past participle actually corresponds to this direct object. So, for example: Ask the WHAT and WHERE questions to find out what the direct object is and where it is.
2. In the case of verbs, which are usually conjugated with avoir, past participation never coincides with the subject. However, he will agree with any previous direct object. So, True paradises are the paradises we have lost. – Marcel Proust She went on vacation. (She went on vacation.) They stayed at home. (They stayed at home.) In such cases, you need to pay attention to which pronoun is the direct object pronoun: that is, which pronoun means “the thing that is bought”, etc. Reflexive If the subject is the direct object of the verb, the partizip past tense coincides with it (see Reflexive). If you have a pronominal verb that is not followed by a noun, the reflexive pronoun is usually the direct object.* It has cut itself off. (She cuts herself.) [Cut takes a direct object; therefore, the participle corresponds to se.] One could really argue that clothing is a plural woman because the subject is a plural woman or because the direct object is a plural woman.
It makes no difference to the end result. In fact, the claim that the participle 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. That is the short answer. The slightly longer answer is: for example, the female form of fallen (fallen) has fallen; 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). Things are simpler in language than in written form. Because: Freedom belongs to those who conquered it. André Malraux Liberty belongs to those who conquered it. This is the simplest case.
With normal (i.e. non-reflexive) verbs that assume to be, past participation always coincides with the subject. So: there are some cases of reflexive verbs in which the reflexive pronoun actually represents an indirect object, usually with the meaning of “to myself”, to oneself”, “to oneself”, etc. For example: Why is this so? Because if these verbs are used non-pronominally with a noun, they need a preposition, which means that the noun is an indirect object. So if this preposition + object is replaced by a reflexive pronoun, the pronoun is also indirect. Rule: Correspondence between the previous section and the direct object. In reflexive verbs, the general pattern is that the past partizip coincides with the subject of the verb: the most common reflexive verb where the past 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. So, basically, this is good news when it comes to spoken language. In everyday French, past participles rarely change their pronunciation. At the GCSE level, the most important past section to which its pronunciation changes is, in fact, that of the reflexive verb to sit (sitting), which will sit > sitting.
The last “s” is not pronounced in the masculine form, but in the feminine form (like a z sound). “The pancakes I ate”: a new agreement for the past participle Also in questions, the pronoun question often counts as a previous direct object. Glory, I have known it, I have seen it. “Honoré de Balzac Gloire, I knew it, I saw it.” In this case, you can participate in those that end with a consonant, which change their pronunciation. For example: He created the strongest civil administration that France has ever known. — André Malraux about Napoleon 1, Antimémoires So in this case the leg comes before the verb and therefore the past partizip is feminine, although the subject it is masculine. .
