Spoken French always distinguishes the plural from the second person and the plural from the first person in the formal language and from the rest of the contemporary form in all the verbs of the first conjugation (infinitive in -il) except Tout. 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. The very irregular verb is the only verb with more coherence than this one in the contemporary form. It would of course be possible to rephrase “Bob drives a BMW and Alice (drives) a Lexus”.
The repeated verb can be deleted. In the case of verbs, a gender agreement is less widespread, although it may still occur. In the French past, for example, the former work of the participants corresponds, in certain circumstances, to the subject or an object (for more details, see compound past). In Russian and most other Slavic languages, the form of the past in sex corresponds to the subject. Our results showed that all sentence processing patterns were similar to all groups, with similar numerical effects in all groups: the plural number was processed more quickly in the current segments than the singular, in both pre-verbal and post-verbal conditions. Unilingual data on children appear to support the continuity of the analysis hypothesis (Pinker 1984; Clahsen and Felser, 2006) because the parsing of monolingual children was similar to adults. There were differences in the speed of processing; Bilingual children were significantly slower than monolinguals. In pre-verbal illness, monolingual and bilingual children showed a similar number effect that suggests that they recognized the interacity.