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. The word “agreement,” if one refers to a grammatical rule, means that the words used by an author must be aligned with number and sex (if any). For more details on the two main types of agreements, please see below: Object-Verb-Accord and Noun Pronoun. In English, the defective verbs usually show no agreement for the person or the number, they contain the modal verbs: can, can, can, must, should, should. There is also unanimity in the number. For example: Vitabu viwili vitatosha (Two books will suffice), Michungwa miwili itatosha (Two orange trees will suffice), Machungwa mawili yatatosha (Two oranges will suffice). At the beginning of modern times, there was an agreement for the second person, which singularus all the verbs in the current form, as well as in the past some usual verbs. It was usually in the shape-east, but -st and t also occurred. Note that this does not affect endings for other people and numbers.
The subject-verb agreement (SVA) is considered one of the most difficult structures for learners who acquire a foreign language. The difficulties faced by L2 learners with regard to ASA can be attributed to the complexity of the morphology of specific bending in some languages. However, English has an extremely bad folding system, which is governed by a simple SVA rule: the verb gets suffix-s if the subject is singular in the third person.