The rule is as follows: if the direct object is written according to the verb “to have”: disagree! So we write “eaten” (not s at the end) Hello everyone! I am a free writer, PhD student, mother and Francophile. I am happy to share with all of you some of my experiences in France, as well as the cultural nuances I learned in marriage to a Frenchman. To learn more about me, visit my website at www.imaginistwriter.com. See you next time! As you know, take different verbs in the past either have or be. While most past participations take the verb to have, there are a few very common verbs that take to be. You may have learned the past participations which are the verb to be as a Dr& Mrs mnemonic device. According to Vandertramp, as shown below, past participations, which take the auxiliary deposit, sometimes correspond (in sex and number) to the direct purpose of the verb, depending on where it is placed: this is the simplest case. == Web links ==== web links ==== B. non-reflexive verbs) which assume to be, the past part always corresponds to the subject. So, in fact, the claim that past participation corresponds to the direct object turns out to be a better explanation.

This is better because the same rule then explains what happens for a few rarer cases of reflex verbs where the reflexive pronoun is not really the direct object. The rule is as follows: if the direct object is in front of the verb to have, there is a correspondence with this direct object. Many people want to reject the direct object agreement – what do you think? Read the article and chat on Facebook: Normally, we learn that previous entries using the verb to have do not need to show their consent. For example, if a woman says, “I spoke with him” (I spoke to her), you should NOT put an extra “e” (named the female spokesperson) at the end of speaking. For reflective verbs, the general pattern is that past participation corresponds to the subject of the verb: I saw a mouse in the street here night (I saw a mouse on the street last night). Here, vu does not take into account the subject of the sentence and remains seen regardless of the gender of the spokesperson. This rule of compliance with previous participations that use Have is quite difficult, but it is important to know to be grammatically correct (especially when writing, because you would not hear a difference most of the time if you are spoken!). Leave me a comment below with questions or examples of where you would use the previous participation agreement. In the sentence above, the purchased are written with an -s to match the direct object the gifts. In the previous section, we found that past participation corresponds to the theme of reflex verbs. But in fact, we could say that this corresponds to the direct object, because the purpose of a reflex verb is that the subject and the object are essentially “the same”. So, in a case like: 2.

Where is the direct object? So there is an agreement before the verb To Have. “The” means “fries”, which is the feminine plural. We found that, in everyday language, native French speakers do not tend to enter into previous participation agreements with Avoir when they are the norm in formal writing. The same goes for reflex verbs. For example, the formal font form of this sentence has an earlier correspondence 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 past participation. But the verbs of Have need coherence in a very specific construction: the past participation must correspond to the direct object if it precedes the verb. . .

.