(a) With regard to nouns, the choice between the two cases depends on the context: the nominative case indicates a constant quality of the object, in its permanent intrinsic characteristic, whereas the instrumental case implies a temporary characteristic: in implicit learning, research tasks are considered “direct” memory tests that are above all open to conscious and explicit knowledge. As such performance in a generational task, it is possible to separate from performance at an indirect level of implicit knowledge (as in this case, short-term memory), with participants showing evidence of learning on indirect, implicit, fair measures, but not on direct and explicit measurement (Keane et al. 1995). This may be due to interference due to erroneous conscious assumptions that are formed during the generation task, or because the difference in task formats prevents the expression of the implicit knowledge that is formed during the exposure phase. Whatever the reason, such a dissociation between the performance of indirect and direct actions is generally considered to be evidence of the existence of implicit knowledge (see Shanks, Wilkinson – Cannon 2003, for an alternative view). (c) For adjectives, any case can be used, regardless of the link. Instrumental, however, is characteristic of the literary and nominative language – of the conversation: I thank one critic for pointing out that the OBL is not already treated monolithicly in Iranian linguistics, and it is generally suggested that OBL O be taken as ACC in the current strain and that OBL A be considered ERG in the past (see Payne 1980; Dorleijn 1996; Stilo 2009; Haig 1998, 2008; Atlamaz 2012; Baker and Atlamaz 2014; Atlamaz and Baker 2016, 2018; Karimi 2013, 2015; Kaufman 2017; but see Bobaljik (2008:fn. 3) where, for some other languages, there is no difference between oblique cases). In recognition of this classification, the categorization is rather based here on the syntactic behavior of the arguments that carry the OBL case and is therefore always different from the previous literature, where the syntactic aspect is not the leading factor. In other languages, the verb corresponds to two or more arguments according to a case hierarchy (Bobaljik 2008).
In Archi, for example, the verb indicates not only the absolute argument, but also the ergative argument (transitive subject) (Corbett 2006: 57; referring to Kibrik 2003: 562-3). In Basque, the finite verb indexes the absolute, the energetic and the dative (Hualde, Oyharabal – Ortiz de Urbina 2003).4 In the accusative systems, the second most likely argument indexed to the nominative subject is the subject of drums, then the dative (Moravcsik 1974). In all these languages, we can describe the case and agreement systems as consistent, because both follow either the accusatory or the generating orientation, regardless of the number of arguments that are actually indexed. We will describe systems such as Basque, Tsez and Belhare as ERG-ERG to display the orientation of non and compliance orientation (regardless of the number of arguments actually indicated on the verb). 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.