Re: verb agreement in one stage of English

--- 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.

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.)

Ray

> The universal's probably even weaker - in Hindi (and many other
> Indic languages), the verb of the past tense of a transitive verb
> agrees with the direct object. (Historically, these are passives,
> with the agent expressed in the instrumental, whence the 'split
> ergative' of Hindi.)
>
> Incidentally, where did the 'have' perfects of Germanic, Romance

and

> Modern Greek originate?
>
> Richard.