Also keep in mind the agreement that has been shown to be also in the subjunctive mind. Another characteristic is the agreement in the participatory parties that have different forms for the sexes: in the name sentences, the adjectives do not show a concordance with the noun, although the pronouns do. z.B. a szép k-nyveitekkel “with your beautiful books” (“szép”: nice): the suffixes of the plural, the possessive “your” and the fall marking are marked only on the noun. Languages cannot have a conventional agreement at all, as in Japanese or Malay; barely one, as in English; a small amount, as in spoken French; a moderate amount, such as in Greek or Latin; or a large quantity, as in Swahili. The adjectives correspond in terms of sex and number with the nouns they change into French. As with verbs, chords are sometimes displayed only in spelling, as forms written with different modes of concordance are sometimes pronounced in the same way (z.B pretty, pretty); Although, in many cases, the final consonan is pronounced in female forms, but mute in male forms (z.B. small vs. small). Most plural forms end in -s, but this consonant is pronounced only in contexts of connection, and these are determinants that help to understand whether it is the singular or the plural. In some cases, the entries of the verbs correspond to the subject or object. Canonical typology is a methodological framework for the realization of typological research, in which descriptive categories and theoretical concepts are constructed into parameters of fine-grained typological variation. The method differs from other contemporary approaches to typology in its attraction to the concept of canon, a logical archetype from which are calibrated and undclared motifs.

This chapter deconstructs the framework by offering a gradual introduction to the principles that can be used to identify canonical (and non-canonical) morphology and by paying particular attention to the knowledge already provided by the method for right and derivative morphology. After looking at how canonical typology was used to analyze what it means to be a “possible word,” the chapter turns to the wall where it could go and how it might develop if more morphological phenomena are studied from the frame. In Hungarian, verbs have a polypersonal concordance, which means that they correspond to more than one of the arguments of the verb: not only its subject, but also its object (accusative). There is a difference between the case where a particular object is present and the case where the object is indeterminate or if there is no object at all. (Adverbs have no influence on the form of the verb.) Examples: Szeretek (I love someone or something indeterminate), szeretem (I love him, she, or her, or her, specifically), szeretlek (I love you); szeret (he loves me, me, you, someone or something indeterminate), szereti (he loves him, her or her especially). Of course, names or pronouns can specify the exact object. In short, there is agreement between a verb and the person and the number of its subject and the specificity of its object (which often refers more or less precisely to the person). Case agreement is not an essential feature of English (only personal pronouns and pronouns with a case mark).

The agreement between these pronouns can sometimes be observed: compared to English, Latin is an example of a very curved language. The consequences of an agreement are therefore: most Slavic languages are strongly bent, with the exception of Bulgarian and Macedonian.