The agreement generally includes the matching of the value of a grammatical category between different elements of a sentence (or sometimes between sentences, as in some cases where a pronoun agrees with its predecessor or its reference opinion). Some categories that often trigger grammatical chords are listed below. And all this work is needed to use the suffix once you`ve learned it. ” – Steven Pinker: The Language Instinct. William Morrow, 1994 Also note the agreement that has been demonstrated by the fact that he is even in a subjunctive atmosphere.  This distinguishes Itelmen from other languages of Chukotko Kamchatkan, all of which have accusatory (partial) ergative fall systems. Other languages also have a name that Itelmen lacks. Since this verb may in principle bear oblique similarities and has no immediate purpose, the presence of a datifment (or owner) seems to make this element the most important non-subject member of the clause. (Remember that the topicality of the topic played no role in the analysis of Section 3.1). Accordingly, a strictly hierarchical analysis (i.e. “the most important internal argument”) would lead to an agreement with the dative (or owner) in such cases, because without another argument, the dative would always be “the most important” internally.
On the contrary, what such examples require is a report that the facts of the Oblique agreement are indicated as a benefit to the dative when it is important (in one sense or, for example, if it proves relevant), the “normal” agreement model receiving something else. In the previous section, the agreement with oblique (dative) arguments from the point of view of verbs with several internal arguments (i.e. ditransitive verbs) was discussed. Our conclusion was that, unlike purely morphological effects (section 3), the apparent choice, whether or not one agrees with an oblique argument, is a matter of two hierarchies (probably related) related to discourse: the one we called loosely “thematic celebrity” and the other a hierarchy of people. Itelmen differs from its neighbors in that it allows an oblique match with a seemingly wide range of verb classes (although there are significant variations of spokespeople over which we have nothing to say). Examples of oblique concordance with ditransitive verbs other than “give” are lexical urns of transiting verbs, such as . B ɬintɬi” X (clothes) to put on Y” (<ɬin- CAUSATIVE and t (ɸ) ɬ (i)` in (16b), above, and verbs with an optional destination argument such as "nntxla" and ɬa/la-say: in this section, we present our analysis of the factors that determine concordance, especially in the suffix position of the verb Itelmen. First, we will argue that the apparent "absolute" nature of the above suffixes is epiphenomenon and that there are no arguments in favour of such treatment of suffixes. In section 3.1, we recount the observation of Volodin-Vakhtin (1986) that there are no isolated adventurers who can be said to have an absolutely ive distribution. We then turn to a more complex concern, namely the direct objects of the third person. Where the paradigm might have been expected to be the simplest, it turns out where it is most complex.
Nevertheless, we will argue that there is order in this part of the paradigm; In short, we will show that it is precisely when the direct object is in the third person that the characteristics of the subject must be consulted to determine the correct form of the soufflé agree.