Another characteristic is the adequacy of participations that have different forms for different sexes: a study in information models in Arabic, particularly relevant for chord asymmetries in SV-vs word codes (see also the agreement resolution in The Coordinations). 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. 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).
In standard English, for example, you can say I am or it is, but not “I am” or “it is.” This is because the grammar of the language requires that the verb and its subject coincide personally. The pronouns I and him are respectively the first and third person, just as the verbs are and are. The verbage form must be chosen in such a way as to have the same person as the subject, unlike the fictitious agreement based on meaning.   In American English, for example, the expression of the United Nations is treated as singular for the purposes of concordance, although it is formally plural. The very irregular verb is the only verb with more coherence than this one in the contemporary form. If you are referring to general groups or names, you should pay attention to the number and gender agreement. In Nynorsk, Norway, Swedish, Icelandic and Norway, current participants must agree on gender, number and certainty whether the participatory party is in an attribute or predictive position. With regard to the Icelandic and the fist table, the current participants should also agree in the grammatical case. Words that are related to a subject, in addition to, as well as (how), with, except, no, etc. are linked and the verb corresponds to the original subject.
 The isolation of the list of works that should be considered “fundamental” in a given field or subsector is clearly a highly subjective issue, for which it may be difficult (if not impossible) to reach consensus; however, these works, hopefully, will put, if not all works on agreement, that would merit such a name (see also Chomsky 2000 and Chomsky 2001, both cited as test-goal). Moravcsik 1978 is a groundbreaking typological study of the conformity of a large typological sample. George and Kornfilt in 1981, Fassi Fehri in 1988, Bobaljik in 1995, Chung in 1998 and Rackowski and Richards 2005 are supposed to be case studies on agreement in certain languages (or language families), but they have proven to be very influential and important for the development of the theory of concordance in general. In 1997, research on uniqueness in the language of adults and the study of language learning. Anagnostopoulou 2003 is an innovative case study on how agreement (and climate doubling) can help to understand the syntax of a given construction, in this case the verb ditransity.