Agreement
Adjectives in Spanish can mostly be divided into two large groups: those that can be found in the dictionary ending in o, and the others. The former typically agree for number and gender; the latter typically agree just for number. Here are some examples:
frío means "cold". This is the dictionary form, and it corresponds to the masculine singular form. When it agrees with a feminine noun, it becomes fría. When it agrees with a plural noun, it becomes fríos. When it agrees with a noun that is both feminine and plural, it becomes frías. Here is a list of a few common adjectives in their four forms:
- frío = "cold"; → frío, fría, fríos, frías
- pequeño = "small"; → pequeño, pequeña, pequeños, pequeñas
- rojo = "red"; → rojo, roja, rojos, rojas
Identifying adjectives diagram
Do Adjectives End in "o"? / \ / \ Yes No / \ / \ / \ / \ Masculine? Feminine? Singular? \ (No Change)("o" becomes "a") (No Change)\ \ / \ \ / Plural Plural / \ (Add "s") / \ End in Vowel? \ (Add "s") End in Consonant? (Add "es")Here are a few common adjectives that agree only in number:
- caliente = "hot" → caliente, caliente, calientes, calientes
- formal = "formal" → formal, formal, formales, formales
- verde = "green" → verde, verde, verdes, verdes
The division into these two groups is a generalisation however. There are many examples such as the adjective español itself which does not end in o but adds an a for the feminine and has four forms (español, española, españoles, españolas). There are also adjectives that do not agree at all (generally words borrowed from other languages, such as the French beige (also Hispanicised to beis)).
Read more about this topic: Spanish Adjectives
Famous quotes containing the word agreement:
“Culture is the tacit agreement to let the means of subsistence disappear behind the purpose of existence. Civilization is the subordination of the latter to the former.”
—Karl Kraus (1874–1936)
“Truth cannot be defined or tested by agreement with ‘the world’; for not only do truths differ for different worlds but the nature of agreement between a world apart from it is notoriously nebulous. Rather—speaking loosely and without trying to answer either Pilate’s question or Tarski’s—a version is to be taken to be true when it offends no unyielding beliefs and none of its own precepts.”
—Nelson Goodman (b. 1906)
“The methodological advice to interpret in a way that optimizes agreement should not be conceived as resting on a charitable assumption about human intelligence that might turn out to be false. If we cannot find a way to interpret the utterances and other behaviour of a creature as revealing a set of beliefs largely consistent and true by our standards, we have no reason to count that creature as rational, as having beliefs, or as saying anything.”
—Donald Davidson (b. 1917)