[Who/what is washed? –> “hands.” “Hands” is the direct object and is placed according to the verb, disagree.] She cut off her hand. She cut off his hand. [The hand is the direct object (here becomes an indirect pronodem of an object that indicates to whom the hand was cut). As the hand does not precede the participatory, there is no agreement.] Did you see Romain`s new bike? This is it. [“Roman`s new motorcycle” is the direct object; in the first sentence, it does not conform to the verb; in the second sentence, the personal pronoun “the” is the direct object that replaces “Roman`s new motorcycle”; the old “bought” stake therefore agrees with it.] [Who is washed?” –> “They.” The subject is therefore the recipient of the appeal, there is consensus.] In general, the current participant does not agree with the use of having. In the following sentence, for example, the subject is the female plural and the direct object (gifts) is plural male, but no match is added to the previous purchased participant: The rules of the agreement of the former participant vary. Basically, a lot of people want to avoid the direct object agreement – what do you think? Read the article and discuss on Facebook: if there is a direct object that is the recipient of the action, then the rules of agreement are the same as in have: the previous participant agrees with the direct object when placed in front of the verb and disagrees if placed after. In some expressions, such as just infinitive, let `infinite, realize, and others, the space of the direct object is maintained by an infinitive or other complement that will always follow the main verb. As a general rule, no agreement is reached in these expressions. We found that native speakers in the common language do not tend to enter into participatory agreements with having if they are the norm in formal writings.

The same goes for reflexive verbs. For example, the formal form of this sentence has a participatory agreement passed with the direct purpose: In reality, speakers do not tend to add agreements with having in the daily discourse. They probably only make these agreements by speaking carefully and thinking about the written language when they speak. So if they don`t read from a script, it usually looks like: 5) For semi-verbals, there is no correspondence with the direct object, because the object still belongs to the infinitive, not the half-relief. In these cases, the reflexive pronoun is not the direct object. In the first sentence, the farts are prepared; In the second case, the thing that is broken is the leg. And in these cases, there is no agreement on the past. Note that none of the verbs in this category (except hatch > hatched) have old entries that end in a consonant.

In other words, the “agreement” of these verbs essentially applies only to the language of writing. Nuance: some “tre verbs” can be used with direct objects, in which case they are combined with have (see excipients).