Figure 1. Responsibility for acceptability – number and purpose. This sentence uses a compound subject (two subject nouns that are related and related), illustrating a new rule on the subject-verbal agreement. However, if the subject is plural, the verb must be plural. 5. Don`t be misled by a sentence that comes between the subject and the verb. The verb is in agreement with the subject, not with a name or pronoun in the expression. However, the plural verb is used when the focus is on the individuals in the group. It`s much rarer.
Subjects composed in association with and remaining are treated separately. The verb must correspond to the subject closest to the verb. However, as inanimate subjects are often “deducted” as in non-acoustic or passive structures, we did not include animacy as a variable in our study. Instead, the themes used were animated with the exception of one. The agreement was either called syntism (Chomsky, 2001; or a comprehensive post-syntaxic process (Bobaljik, 2008) with reports on the closest Conjunct Agreement (CCA) to identify linear proximity as an important post-synt tactical component of the 1996 grammar (Benmamoun grammar, 1996); Benmamoun et al., 2009; for a detailed analysis of the location agreement, see Bhatt and Walkow, 2013). Within syntactic accounts, it was argued that the agreement between the subjects of contact information would be concluded either with contractual accounts in whole or in part. In complete agreements, the agreement is made with the coordinating phrase as a whole, while the insenctuousity is settled according to the rules of resolution (Corbett, 1991). In the partial accounts (Aoun et al., 1994), there is an agreement with the nearest conju gle available; in post-focal contexts, either with the first or highest subjunctive (First Conjunct Agreement, FCA) and in pre-verbal contexts with the latter (Last Conjunct Agreement, LCA).
For partial contractual accounts, the linear order between coordinated MEPs is treated indirectly within the syntactic component. The phenomenon of partial concordance with coordinate subjects has been confirmed in many unrelated languages such as Arabic (Aoun et al., 1994), Slovenian (Marué et al., 2007), Hindi (Benmamoun, 2000) and Serbo-Croatian (Boakovic, 2009, 2010). This (erroneous) agreement in the number agreements can be addressed in two ways; either by the coordination of the vice-president with verb increase, as in (3), or by the coordination of DP, as in (4). The abandonment of the acceptance judgment, which aims to test the verb-subject agreement in Greek, manipulates two factors: the position of the subject (before/postverbal) and the number of the verb (singular/plural).