Case agreement is not an essential feature of English (only personal pronouns and pronouns with a case mark). The correspondence between these pronouns can sometimes be observed: spoken French always distinguishes the second plural person, and the first plural person in formal language, from the other and from the rest of the present in all the verbs in the first conjugation (infinitive in -il) except everything. The plural first-person form and the pronoun (us) are now replaced by the pronoun (literally: “one”) and a third person of singular verb in modern French. So we work (formally) on Work. In most of the verbs of other conjugations, each person in the plural can be distinguished between them and singular forms, again, if one uses the traditional plural of the first person. The other endings that appear in written French (i.e. all singular endings and also the third plural person of the Other as the Infinitifs in-er) are often pronounced in the same way, except in the contexts of liaison. Irregular verbs such as being, fair, all and holdings have more pronounced contractual forms than normal verbs. There is also a consensus between pronouns and precursors.

Examples can be found in English (although English pronouns mainly follow natural sex and not grammatical sex): modern English is not very consistent, although it is present. The document rejects the default view that each English verb corresponds to its subject in person and in number. It argues that the person is not relevant to all verbs, with the exception of BE, and that past verbs and modals (except BE) do not have characteristics of the encrypted agreement. Agreements that reflect the importance of the subject are discussed, but reject the idea that subject-to-verb agreement can be a semantic rule; instead, it proposes a new “agreement number.” This additional number function applies only to a tense verb and by default has the same value as the ordinary number of the subject, while allowing different types of incursions (for me and you and for cases of “semantic” agreement). It also provides compliance analyses with non-nominal subjects and mannequins there, and shows how analysis for standard English easily spreads across a number of variations found in non-standard dialects. The theoretical basis of the analysis is Word Grammar, whose main advantage is that features can be freely assigned by rule, as they are not used in the classification. Another characteristic is the concordance in the participatory that have different forms for the sexes: In English, defective verbs usually show no match for the person or number, they contain the modal verbs: can, can, must, must, should. The chord is a phenomenon in the natural language, in which the form of a word or morphems covariate with the form of another word or sentence in the sentence. For example, in the English phrase John goes Fido every morning, the shape of the “walks” is conditioned by the characteristics of the theme, “John”.

This can be replaced by “John” by an element with different relevant characteristics, as in We go fido every morning, leading to a change in the form of “walks” to “walks” (or, alternatively, a change from “-s” to an empty morpheme, .