Tag Info

This statement is not quite ungrammatical, but it's definitely not a neutral writing and speaking style either. It is parsable and comprehensible, but it abuses the relatively lax Russian word order rules. So your professor is right in a way: it's not a mistake in the strict sense, but people don't really talk like that unless they are making their way out ...

It's totally grammatical, in theory ambiguous but however on practice, since it's way more common to see a rubbish chute ruined by people rather than a rubbish suite filled up with human beings - this disambiguation is virtually negligible. Context is important. Compare following text snippets: Полянка была замусорена студентами. Лужайка была завалена ...

The Russian adverbial participles have relative tense, that is, the present tense adverbial participles denote a secondary action which is simultaneous with the main action of the sentence, and the past tense adverbial participles denote an action which was / is /will be prior to the main action. In this respect your first example is OK, "I got tired ...

Russian does allow for a lot of flexibility with word order but moving the subject from the main clause to the subordinate clause is pushing its limits unto the ungrammatical zone. This can occur in impromptu, unprepared speech, the kind that Krylov was portraying. Certainly not clear, academic writing which your teachers were probably expecting. Both your ...

I don't remember you working with me in Moscow. In this case you can only use: Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве. or Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember. This can be better illustrated if we omit the ...

The participles ending in -en usually, but not always, correspond to the passive voice. That's why you don't see them on that page; it's about active participles. Passive participles are discussed here. I will expand a bit on the material outlined there. The Russian term for passive participle is страдательное причастие. There's no form that is common to ...

No, this is not true. It’s not easy to say something like разбитое стекло, обтягивающее белье, дрожащие руки, лоснящаяся кожа, текущий кран; придти не предупредив, отвечать не думая and so on without using participles (причастия) and transgressives (деепричастия). Participle and transgressive clauses (причастные и деепричастные обороты) are less common in ...

But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form? Well, mostly yes. These forms are normal for perfective verbs. For imperfective ones they rather belong to XIX century. Basically, you should use imperfective in present tense only (e.g. "делая"), switching to perfective if past tense required (e.g. "сделав" or "сделавши")...

уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction? Yes, but more accurately THEY had already sold, in Russian it's an impersonal construction. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems ...

The imperfective aspect is about state, and the perfective is about state transition. переводившие here means "the students who have been translating the article," i.e. all those who have ever been "in a state of translating the article." As long as the student spent at least some time translating the article, they would qualify for переводившие. Its ...

But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form? Does it mean something like "having been saying, doing x" Usually you can replace them with a present form. While according to the most purist points of view that might be considered a misuse, it's pretty acceptable almost everywhere. Both these forms are ...

...кото́рые проплыва́ли (from unidirectional motion verb плы́ть), not пропла́вали (from multidirectional / cyclical пла́вать), cf. unidirectional езжа́ть → проезжа́ющие. As for prefix, I doubt that it can ever affect the way how a participle is formed. So it may be Проплыва́вшие яхтсме́ны (past participle) or Проплыва́ющие яхтсме́ны (present participle), ...

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:...

There might be rules and my kids probably learn them. I tried to figure it out, and simple patterns come into mind: Perfect forms of verbs end with the same vowel as in the participle ending (что сделать?) Imperfect forms of verbs always end with: -ать/-ять (что делать?) -ан -ана -ано -> -ать сделан сделана сделано -> сделать прочитан прочитана ...

Passing yachtsmen it's definitely проплывающие яхтсмены adverbial participle of static actions usually don't have a prefix про, compare: Читащий, решающий, говорящий but some statically active (dynamic action in static position) can be with про проигрывающий (сидит на месте, но проигывает) , проворачивающий (сидит на месте, но проворачивает), ...

The first one is the correct interpretation. To express the second one you would say "Женщина, читавшая книгу, жила в Москве".

As far as I know, the participles mean "the ones which are being changed" (your example #1), and the adjectives mean "the ones that can be changed" (your examples #2 and #3). Anyhow, it is very difficult even for the native speakers of Russian to distinguish between the participles and the adjectives.

In addition to previous answers, considering nautical/sailor own professional language, probably проходившие яхтсмены could be better sounding than проплывавшие. My father was in Soviet Navy and he still hates saying or hearing something like "корабль плывёт", reasoning like "плавают люди, а корабли ходят", hence he argues "моряки ходят на кораблях", and "...

1.Читая книгу, я устал.-Correct. 2.Читав книгу, я устал.-Incorrect. It should be 2.Прочитав книгу, я устал. "Читав" exists, but we don't say so. If we consider the correct sentences, the first means that you got tired while reading (during the process)."Прочитав"means that the action was completed and you felt tired after you finished reading the book.

Not sure if Russian is classified as having perfect aspect, but переводившие definitely has a sense of something that is in the past. You would need to use переводящие, if you wanted to stress that the translation was on-going. But переводившие wouldn't necessarily mean that the translation has positively finished. Say, students, last time I was in contact ...

Is there any concern over using a PPP as an adjective if it doesn't fit the above two qualifications? 'Allotted' does describe a change: the change between you not having an allotted time and you having one. So it does fit the definition in the link. Would there then be no necessary distinction, and thought, over using PPPs if one cannot find a good ...

Each case should be addressed separately, there's no single rule. Let's start with wikipedia: В русском языке похожее значение иногда могут иметь прилагательные на основе пассивных причастий настоящего времени с суффиксом -м-: например, непобедимый означает тот, которого невозможно победить (ср. с нормальными причастиями типа гонимый — тот, ...

I know this is an old question, but still... Even in the free-order languages, some word orders are more standard (unmarked) and others are more unusual (marked). Non-standard word order must have a reason. In poetry it is often rhyme or even more often poetic meter. I would guess this is the reason for this word order in Krylov's case. The unmarked word ...

При отсутствии подчиненных слов «не» принадлежит причастию и потому является приставкой. При наличии же подчиненных слов «не» относится не к одному слову, а к обороту в целом, становясь союзом: человека какого? не <спасшегося в тот день>. Сравните с полноценным противопоставлением, где мы тоже сравниваем конструкции в целом: человека какого? не <...

Я только поясню вдобавок к тому, что уже сказано в предыдущих ответах, что речь идёт не столько о (дее-)причастных оборотах, сколько о распространённых членах предложения вообще. Грамматическое согласование в русском языке (т.е. падежи, рода и числа) имеет настолько большой приоритет по сравнению с порядком слов в предложении, что логически связанные слова ...

The participle переводившие is a Past Tense imperfective participle. So, it is "The students who translated this article said it was very difficult" (if we observe the sequence of tenses in English; otherwise, and literally, "say it is very difficult").

КоторЫЕ is in Nominative in the sentence #2 (subject книги) but in Accusative in the sentence #3 (the subject is этот автор while книги is the object), but in both cases it's которЫЕ since this inflexion fits both grammatical cases Nominative and Accusative which are used for subject and object in plural respectively, it refers to книги, because they're the ...

A participle is a form of a verb that describes change over time. An adjective describes a more permanent attribute. What makes example #1 постоянно изменяемые different from the other two is that it describes a change over time.

While generally the first interpretation is the correct one, it has to be remembered that there is such thing as 'historical present', when a narrator uses present when telling about past events. Though I may be mistaken, it seems to me that this rhetorical device tends to be used oftener in Russian than in English. If this is the case, the sentence means, '...