Re: verb agreement in one stage of English

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Ray" <ray28238317@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
> > But this rule is not a brief transitional rule at the Académie
> > Francaise - the past participle in avoir perfects agrees with a
> > preceding direct object to this day. The auxiliary verb agrees
> with
> > the subject, so I don't agree that the universal is violated.
>
> First, would you tell me where Académie Francaise is spoken? I

know

> nothing about it. Thank you.

Its web site is http://www.academie-francaise.fr . The Académie
Française is charged with regulating the usage of French.

> Second, can we treat the auxiliary agreement separate from main-

verb

> agreement? If we treat two types of agreement differently, then it
> can still be said that the sentence violates the implicational
> universal. (the auxiliary does not contradict the universal, but

the

> main verb did.)

I think the verb should be treated as a whole. We then see both
subject-marking on the auxiliary and (optional) object-marking on
the participle. There has been a general tendency to eliminate
object-marking in this construction, at least in Germanic (where I
think it is now extinct) and Romance (reported to be extinct in
every-day spoken French). I don't have a Modern Greek grammar to
check on what has happened in that language.

Richard.