I had earlier asked a question about adjectives and participles, and cited this link:

How to tell a participle from an adjective?

I now understand the answer of the above link better -

The answers in the link above mention a distinction by either time,

A participle is a form of a verb that describes change over time. An adjective describes a more permanent attribute.

or.... 'manifestation of change',

As far as I know, the participles mean "the ones which are being changed", and the adjectives mean "the ones that can be changed"

though the latter person qualifies this only for the specific examples in that link.

But now I want to express this second English sentence (first one is included only for context);

(There was a lot of paperwork to do.) 
Therefore our father wanted us involved in the meeting with the agent.

and I originally (now knowing to use a participle [plural, accusative, pass, passive, perfective]) suggested the second sentence as;

(Нам ну́жно бы́ло заполнить мно́го докуме́нтов.)
Поэ́тому наш оте́ц хоте́л нас вовлечённых в встре́чу с агентом.

Aside from this second sentence sounding formal, or awkward, is it grammatically correct?

Did I use the proper case/gender/number? ("us" is a male & a female)

I am especially interested in the case of the participle, as applying cases to participles is something I am having great difficulty with. (I assume that, since который can be substituted for a present active participle, that the case of a participle is governed in the same manner as it is for который)

If not a good word, is there an alterantive participle in the same/a different case to use?

  • 2
    Привлечь (нас) к участию or задействовать (нас) might give you some more flexibility here if you desire to stick closer to English phrasing. Quassnoi answer is great: it's not easy to be вовлечённым in a meeting without making it sound really awkward, though it's totally OK to be вовлечённым в оформление документов or (colloquially) вовлечённым в "бумажную работу", e.g. Отец хотел вовлечь нас в эту бумажную работу и чтобы мы присутствовали при/на встрече с агентом.
    – DK.
    Commented Jun 15, 2020 at 19:16

1 Answer 1


Your sentence is not grammatically correct.

You cannot just calque wanted us involved into Russian, it does not work this way.

Correct literal translation, albeit a stylistically sloppy one, would be поэтому наш отец и хотел, чтобы мы были вовлечены во встречу с агентом.

In the sentences which do work like this, you have to put the participle in instrumental:

  • Ей никак не хотелось признать себя побеждённой. // She didn't want to admit being defeated (literally "admit herself defeated")

  • Здесь трудовой человек не может чувствовать себя заброшенным и одиноким // Here a working person cannot feel abandoned and alone (literally, "cannot feel oneself abandoned")

  • Я хотел было войти в калитку, но, против обыкновения, нашёл её запертой // I was about to go in at the gate, but found that, contrary to the common usage, it was locked (literally, "found it locked")

  • The examples are appreciated!
    – nate
    Commented Jun 18, 2020 at 18:22
  • These examples, with cases, distracted me from wondering why you still elected to use the very same participle I did, just the "short-form". Books just tell me that the long-forms are "bookish" (maybe related to what @DK. said above in comment) and can be interchanged w/ который+<past tense быть>+<short form>. The only other difference I see in long vs short is wrt adjectives (and, at least active participles) whereby short-forms can be used both predicatively and attributively. How can you use the short-form but not the long-form?
    – nate
    Commented Jun 18, 2020 at 18:23
  • 1
    you can only use the short form with the past passive participles in predicative role. In я был молодой / я был молод both options are ok (it's an adjective), in я был вовлечён / * я был вовлечённый only the first one is (it's a participle). This is something I mentioned here russian.stackexchange.com/a/22548/134
    – Quassnoi
    Commented Jun 18, 2020 at 18:56
  • Okay, it's a rule - "you can only use the short form with the past passive participles in predicative role" that I apparently did not come across. I will write this down, as it is contrary to the use of the short adjective. Thanks!
    – nate
    Commented Jun 18, 2020 at 19:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.