Introduction

I believe that the participle is one of the most difficult parts of speech. It depends on the grammatical indicators of the verb. Four, and if we take into account reflexive, then six participles are formed from transitive imperfective verbs. So, from "read" six participles are possible: reading, reading, reading and return: reading, reading.

V.I. said very aptly about the sacraments. Dahl, the author of the famous dictionary: "The part of speech involved in the verb, in the form of an adjective." Here, attention is paid not only to the content, but also to the form of the participle, since with its “appearance” it really resembles an adjective: it changes in gender, number and case, agrees with nouns and answers the question which one? Therefore, participles contain signs of both verbs and adjectives. The ancient grammarians also noticed this duality of the participle, giving it the name "participle", i.e. participle of the name and the verb. The combination of signs of different parts of speech in one word naturally makes these words richer in content, and therefore more economical, which M.V. Lomonosov: "These verb names serve to reduce the human word, containing the name and the verb power. This property of participles to include "they had the power of the verb" is widely used in written speech, especially in fiction. Pictures of nature, portrait characteristics, internal The experiences of the characters are very often conveyed by writers through participles, but in ordinary colloquial speech the participles are sharp. We do not say: a carriage galloping over a bridge; a servant sweeping the room; we say: which jumps, which sweeps, etc. - replacing the expressive brevity of the sacrament with a sluggish turn "

In my abstract, I wanted to explain the most difficult points in education, use, etc. participles. The main difficulty and frequent errors arise from the fact that many people confuse participles with adjectives. In comparison and on examples, on mistakes, you can still learn to write correctly and understand all the subtleties and depth of the great Russian language.

Participle

The participle is a hybrid verb-adjective form, which in the school tradition is considered as a special verb form. Participles connect the signs of a verb and an adjective, expressing the meaning of the procedural attribute of an object. Verbal signs of participles:

1. The nature of the verb control is preserved (for example: dream of freedom - dreaming of freedom);

2. The form of the corresponding verb is preserved;

3. The participle has two voice forms (in accordance with the two voice concept) - active and passive voice (for example: allowed - active voice, allowed - passive voice);

4. The sacrament has two tense forms - present (loving, beloved) and past (loving) tense.

All verbal signs of participles are constant, variable signs are signs of an adjective: gender, number, case, full or short (for passive participles) form and the corresponding inflection in a sentence - a predicate or a definition.

Present participles are formed from the verb stem of the present tense with the help of suffixes -usch-/-yushch, -ash/-yash- - real participles, suffixes -em-, -om-, -im- - passive participles. Past participles are formed from a stem with an infinitive stem. At the same time, to form real participles, the suffixes -vsh- are used if the stem ends in a vowel (for example: hear-be - heard) or -sh- if the stem ends in a consonant (for example: brought-ti - brought-shi). When forming passive participles of the past tense, suffixes -nn- are added to the verb stem if the stem ends in a vowel, except for /i/ (for example: hang-t - hang-n), -enn if the stem ends in a consonant or /and/, moreover, in the latter case, /and/ drops out (for example: shoot-th - shot-shot, brought-ti - brought-enny), -t- - to form participles from some verbs of unproductive classes with stems on i-, s-, o -, as well as from verbs of the IV productive class (for example: sshi-t - sshi-ty, wash-t - washed-ty, stab - stabbed, turn-t - turned-t). The initial form of the participle, like the adjective, is the nominative singular masculine.

A common feature of the use of participles is that they belong to book speech. This is explained by the history of the sacraments.

The main categories of participles refer to the elements of the literary language, borrowed from the Old Slavonic language, which affects a number of their phonetic features, for example, the presence of u in present participles: current, burning, which correspond to the adjectives fluid, hot, which are Old Russian participles by origin, and also in the presence of a number of participles in front of a solid consonant under the stress e, while in the verbs from which they are formed, under the same conditions, there is e (o): who came, but came, invented, but invented, flourished, but flourished.

The connection of participles with the Old Slavonic language in the 18th century. noted by Lomonosov, who in his "Russian Grammar" explains about several categories of participles that they are used only from Slavic verbs and are unacceptable from Russian. So, he writes: "The real tense of the present participle ending in -sch, are derived from verbs of Slavic origin: crowning, writing, nourishing; but not very decent from simple Russian ones, which are unknown among the Slavs: speaking, champing." The same is noted by him regarding the passive participles of the present tense "From Russian verbs, which were not used by the Slavs, produced, for example: touched, shaken, soiled, very wild and unbearable to hearing", and regarding the past participles of the active voice: "... for example, blurted out, blurted out, dived, dived, very disgusting. At the same time, Lomonosov also notes the great relevance of participles for high styles of speech, indicating that they "rely more decently in rhetorical and poetic writings than in simple calm or in common speech."

At present, two centuries after Lomonosov, there are no restrictions on the formation of participles from purely Russian verbs that are alien to the Old Slavonic language. And the examples of unacceptable participles demonstrated by Lomonosov do not create the impression of insulting the linguistic instinct about which he speaks with such categoricalness, and are quite acceptable. The main categories of full participles are productive and are easily formed from any verbs, including from neoplasms (vernalizing, vernalizing, vernalizing). The passive participles of the present tense are the least common, but they are also productive in some types of verbs (contaminated, formed, stored) and unproductive only with the suffix -om- (carried, driven, sought).

But even now, firstly, participles are an accessory of the literary language (they are absent in dialects); secondly, they almost never occur in colloquial speech.

Standing apart are short participles of the past tense of the passive voice (written, brought, poured), which are widely used in everyday speech and are used in dialects.

On the contrary, for different styles of book speech, full participles are one of the most necessary means, which is used extremely widely. This is due to the fact that participles contribute to the conciseness of speech, making it possible to replace subordinate clauses; compare: Enterprises that completed the plan ahead of schedule and Enterprises that completed the plan ahead of schedule; Delegate elected by the general meeting and Delegate elected by the general meeting. In newspaper speech, turns with participles are almost always preferred.

Participles in their meaning are close to adjectives and often turn into adjectives. The general difference between participles and adjectives is that the participle denotes a temporary sign of an object created by the action of the object itself (real participles) or the action carried out on this object (passive participle), while the adjective denotes a permanent sign of the object, for example: flying seeds are seeds that fly are in motion, and flying seeds - seeds that have structural features that make them easy to fly, are carried by the wind. The adjective, on the contrary, only characterizes the object and does not give information about the state it is in, so the phrase is possible: The earth was covered with flying maple seeds, although these seeds lie motionless on the ground.

Instruction

Before being found in offer participle, it is worthwhile to understand very well what kind of part of speech it is and what its distinguishing features are.

Participle has the properties of a verb and . From the verb he has a form, transitivity, recurrence, tense and voice. Like the adjective participle, it denotes a sign of an object, answers the question “what?”, Serves in offer an agreed definition or nominal part of the compound predicate, as well as (changes by gender and number).

The formation of the participle is closely related to transitivity and the form of the verb, the form of which it is. The real participles of the present tense are formed from the basis of the present tense with the help of suffixes -usch-, -yushch- (for I) and -ash-, -yash- (for II second): “cry-ut - cry-usch-y”, “ treat-at - treat-ash-th. The real participles of the past tense are formed from the stem of the infinitive by replacing -t, -ti with the suffix -vsh-, -sh-: “nes-ti - nes-sh-y”. To form the passive participle of the present tense, the suffix -em- (for I conjugation) and -im- (for II conjugation) is used: "stor-im - stored-im-th". Passive past participles are obtained from the stem of the infinitive in -at, -et with the help of the suffix -nn-: "write - write-nn-th". Verbs in -it form participles with -enn-: "leave - leave-enn-th." And the verbs in -ot, -ut, -yt get the suffix -t-: “inflate - inflate-t-th”.

Read the sentence in its entirety and review. Find words that answer the question "what?". Determine what part of speech they are from. If from a verb, but at the same time they indicate a sign of an object by action and have pronounced grammatical categories of both the verb and the adjective, then you have participles.

Please note that in the modern language, many participles completely lose their verb features and go into the category of adjectives: “outstanding achievements”, “soaked”. It is also necessary to distinguish between adjectives and participles formed in a morphological and syntactic way: “beaten man” (participle), “beaten truth” (adjective).

note

Participles in full form in a sentence are a definition, and in a short one they are used as a nominal part of a compound predicate.

Helpful advice

When defining a participle, be sure to look at the suffix. Some suffixes are inherent only to participles and are absent from adjectives (-yush-, -vsh-, -t-, -im-): “drawing-yush-th”, “beg-vsh-th”, “forget-t-th” , "invisible-im-th".

Sources:

• Participle
• find participle in a sentence

The participle is a special verb form that has both the properties of a verb and an adjective. From the verb, the participle has aspect, transitivity, reflexivity and pledge, and from the adjective - change in cases, numbers and gender, as well as agreement with the noun. The participle, like an adjective, denotes a sign of an object.

Grammar signs of the sacrament

As a special form, it has some features of this part of speech. They are of a perfect and imperfect kind: “- prompted”, “to excite - worried”; returnable and irrevocable: “decided”, “falling asleep”; present and past tense: “thinking”, “running”.

Unlike a verb, the participle does not have a future tense form.

Denoting a sign of an object, the participle, like adjectives, grammatically depends on and agrees with it in gender, number and case. For example: “boiling stream - boiling stream - boiling stream - boiling streams; boiling lava, boiling milk."

Types and ways of forming participles

Lexical meaning - a sign of an object by action - consists of the grammatical features of this part of speech. For example: “singing birds” (those that sing now), “singing birds” (those that sang in the past), “discussed issue” (the one that someone is discussing now), “discussed issue” (the one that already discussed).

Accordingly, there are 4 forms of participles: real present and past tense, passive present and past tense.

The first group of participles (valid present tense) are formed from the basis of the present tense using the suffixes -usch- (-yushch-), -ashch- (-yashch-). The choice of suffix depends on the verb. For example: “cry-ut - cry-usch-y”, “kol-yut - kol-yushch-y” - I conjugation; “Let-at - let-ash-th”, “kle-yat - glue-box-th” - II conjugation.

Real participles in the past tense are formed from the infinitive by replacing the suffixes -т, -ти with the suffixes -вш-, -ш-. For example: “run-be-bezha-vsh-th”, “carry-ti - carry-sh-th”.

Present passive participles are formed from present tense verbs using the suffixes -em- (I conjugation) and -im- (II conjugation): “lele-em - lele-em-th”, “stor-im - store -im-th."

Passive past participles are formed from the stem of the indefinite form of the verb with the suffix -nn-, if the verbs end in -at, -et. Verbs in -it receive the suffix -enn-, as well as verbs in -ti, -ch, and verbs ending in -ot, -ut-, -yt- receive the suffix -t-. For example: “write - write-nn-th”, “capture - capture-en-th”, “save - save-en-th”, “forget - forget-t-th”.

Short participles, as well as short adjectives, are in the sentence the nominal part of the compound nominal predicate.

Passive participles have a short form with truncated: -a, -o, -s. For example: "sent, sent-a, sent-o, sent-s."

Advice 3: How passive past participles are formed

The participle is a special form of the verb that has the properties of both the verb and the adjective. The signs of the verb are the pledge (passive or active), the category of the aspect and the tense. The signs of an adjective are gender, number and case. It is possible to form the passive participle of the past tense with the help of suffixes and from verbs in -ch, -sti, -it.

With the suffix -nn-

These participles are formed from the infinitive of the verb to the vowel. Usually, these are verbs of 1 and 3 classes. The suffix -nn- at the same time joins the basis of the past tense, which ends in -a or -ya, sometimes in -e.

For example, “I saw - I saw-nn-th”; “sowed - sowing-nn-th”; "lost - loss-nn-th."

Note: in short passives, one -n-, for example: "Thoughts are thought out by the author of the book."

In full participles, which were formed from perfective verbs, two -nn- are written, for example: (“what to do?”) “tie up - tied up”.

In participles formed from verbs with -ova-; -eva-, two –nn- are written, for example: “cipher-ova-ny”; "marinated".

With the suffix -enn-

These participles are formed from the infinitive of the verb into a consonant or into a vowel –i-, which drops out. In this case, there is an alternation of the final consonants of the stem itself, which are similar when alternating the formation of the first person of the present or future simple.
For example, “to take out + -enn- = to take out-enn-th”; “brought + -enn- = brought-enn-th”; “buy-l + -enn- = purchased-enn-th”; “ask-l + -enn- = asked-enn-th”.

From the verb to -ch, -sti, -it

Passive past participles from such verbs are formed from the stem of the present or future tense.

For example, "bring - brought"; "acquire - acquired"; "spin - spun"; "steal - stolen"

.
Note: vowels under stress are written -e-, for example: "solve - resolved"; "burn - burned."

In participles that were formed from perfective verbs, two –nn- are always written: “- replaced”; "to lay - to be laid."

In full participles that have a prefix, except for non-, two -nn- are also always written: “cook - cooked”; "to paint - painted."

In full participles that have a dependent word, two -nn- are also written: "painted fence" (a participle that has a dependent word is written with two -nn-), but "painted fence" (adjective).

With the suffix -t-

The suffix -t- is attached to the stem of the verb, ending in an indefinite form in -ot-, -nut, -eret. This suffix can also be used in monosyllabic stems, but without a prefix.
For example: "take out - take out-t-th"; "stab - stab-t-th"; "- wiped-t-th"; "to beat - beat-t-th."

Note: the past tense can also be formed by adding the postfix -sya to the form of the active voice, for example: "sold - sold-sya."

The definition of the participle as a special form of the verb is traditional in linguistics. In his favor is the following:

a) participles are always words derived from the verb;

b) participles preserve the LZ of the generating verb;

c) participles retain the general verbal CC: aspect, transitivity, voice, tense;

d) participles, like verbs, are combined with adverbs and adverbial combinations of words ( write beautifully - write beautifully).

Along with this, participles also show signs of an adjective:

a) participles, like adjectives, denote signs of objects. But unlike adjectives, which express a permanent attribute of an object, participles call a temporary attribute of an object (Compare: tight trousers - a seated person; a smart person is a seated person);

b) like adjectives, participles change by gender, number and case and agree with the words being defined;

c) passive participles, like quality adjectives, have full and short forms. At the same time, full forms of participles usually perform the function of a definition in a sentence, and short forms - the function of a predicate.

3. Formation of real and passive participles. Brief participles

Participles are divided into active and passive.

Active participles (DP) name the sign of an object by the action that the object itself produces (but not always): the engineer who designed the machine.

Passive participles (SP) name the sign of an object according to the action that this object experiences: machine designed by an engineer.

The composition of the participial forms is determined by the aspectual meaning and transitivity / intransitivity of the generating verb.

From verbs nesov. kind present participles and past participles are formed, and from verbs owls. kind- only the past tense.

transitional verbs form real and passive participles, and intransitive verbs are only real participles.

Thus, the vast majority of verbs have an incomplete set of participial forms (no more than three). Only in transitive verbs nes. species can be all 4 forms of participles ( to hear - hearing, heard, heard, audible). Although it should be noted that even from transitive verbs carry. species are rarely formed forms of passive participles of the past tense ( to drive - driven - will not be used., to love - beloved - will not be used.).

Participle	Verb stem	Suffixes	Example
present temp.		–utsch (-yusch) –asch (-box)	write - write - writing watch - watch - beholder
past temp.	stem of the infinitive	–vsh (-sh)	write - writing
present temp.	the basis of present tenses of verbs I conjug. the basis of present tenses of verbs II conjugation.	–eat	see - see - visible
past temp.	stem of the infinitive	–enn / -nn-, -t-	whiten - whitened toss - tossed

! SP present. time should not be confused with prefix-suffix adjectives, which are formed using the prefix -not and suffixes –em (-im) from:

a) intransitive verbs ( burn - fireproof, dry out - inexhaustible);

b) transitive verbs of owls. kind ( indignant - imperturbable).

Short forms are formed only from SP past. time by adding special endings to the stem of the full participle ( open - open, open, open, open). Short participles do not decline, but change only in numbers and genders. Short passive participles crust. time for the modern Russian language are uncharacteristic. They are very rare and are mainly used in book speech ( You were loved by us and kept for dear (P.).).

The participles in Russian traditionally include the following formations.

• yi(spelling also - Yusch) or - ash(orthographically also -box), For example: walking, trembling, setting, influencing, rotating, under construction real participles of the present tense."
• Participles formed with suffixes - vsh or - w, For example: calling, influenced, rotated, built, wrote, frightened, came. Such formations are called " real participles of the past tense".
• Participles formed with suffixes -eat (-ohm) or - them, For example: rotated, studied, formed, movable, carried. Such formations are called " present passive participles".
• Participles formed with the help of suffixes on - n or -t, For example: studied, educated, beaten, busy. Such formations are called "passive participles of the past tense".

As will be shown below, the given designations of participles are to some extent conditional: the semantic and syntactic properties of these formations do not in all cases correspond to the internal form of traditional terms; here these terminological labels are used in strict accordance with the morphological form of participles, that is, in accordance with the type of suffix. In particular, how real participles of the type under construction and under construction, that is, participles that simultaneously have suffixes characteristic of real participles, and a postfix -sya used in a passive sense. On the complex nature of such formations, see.

Participles combine the semantic and grammatical features characteristic of verbs, on the one hand, (the lexical meaning of the stem; management models and, more broadly, the ability to attach dependent ones, forming independent clauses; grammatical categories of pledge, aspect and time, see) and for adjectives , on the other hand (the ability to act as an attribute of the name and - for part of the participles - to form a predicate in combination with a linking verb; concordant categories of gender, number, case and animation, jointly expressed by endings according to the adjectival model; the ability to agree with the name in these categories with attributive use; part of the participles is also characterized by the opposition of short and full forms typical of adjectives, see), see also the articles Verb, Adjective. For this reason, participles are sometimes referred to as “hybrid” in terms of part-of-speech forms or are interpreted as an independent part of speech (cf. A. M. Peshkovsky’s description of them as a “mixed part of speech” [Peshkovsky 1928/2001: 104] and common in typology the concept of "mixed category"), see article Parts of speech.

Here and below, however, participles are treated as morphological forms of verbs. The main reason for such an interpretation is that any participial form is in a paradigmatic relationship with the forms of a certain verbal (and not adjectival) lexeme; e.g. form setting enters into paradigmatic relations with word forms of the verb come in(such as comes in, came in, come in, coming in), rather than any adjective.

A separate participle of a verb is understood as the totality of all word forms that have a common stem, including the participle suffix, and differ in adjectival categories (for example, studied, studied, studied etc.). The consequence of such an interpretation is that short forms of participles ( studied etc.), despite the fact that they cannot act as an attribute of a noun in a sentence.

So, when we talk about the “separate participle” of a particular verb, we mean a whole fragment of the inflectional paradigm of the verb, which has approximately the same internal structure as the paradigm of adjectives (cf. the concept of “adjective declension”). However, as a representative of such a fragment, the full form of the nominative singular masculine is usually used for simplicity; so, for example, it is said that the above word forms are participle word forms studied- Passive past participle from the verb explore.

2. Communion as a means of relativization

The participial turnover (or a single participle if it has no dependents), used in the position of the definition to the name, in most cases we correlate in meaning with some independent clause (otherwise "predicative group", or "elementary predication"), which includes a finite the form of the verb from which the participle is formed, and the noun that is modified by the participle. So, for example, structures setting sun and a chicken being carried away by a hawk, of correspond to the following simple sentences, respectively:

(3) The sun is setting.

(4) The hawk carries off the chicken.

This property of the correlation of the participial structure with the independent clause is explained by the fact that participles, like other verb forms, always indicate a certain situation, real or unreal.

In the first case (the participial structure refers to a real situation), the situation denoted by the participle must take place at a certain point in time. So sentence (1), repeated here for convenience under the number (5), means that at the moment of observation there is a situation that can be denoted as the sun is setting.

(5) Now the Hedgehog and the Bear cub sat motionless under the elm tree and looked at setting sun. [WITH. Kozlov. Is it true we will always be? (1969-1981)]

In the second case, the participial structure refers to an unreal situation, that is, to a situation that is not located on the time axis along with other situations indicated in the context, but in one of the "imaginary worlds", as in the following example:

(6) Imagine human, lying on the beach. [L. Ya. Ginzburg. Notebooks. Memories. Essay (1920-1943)]

However, even in the case of unreal semantics, the participle refers to a situation that can be indicated by an independent clause ( man lies on the beach).

Thus, with the participle used as a concordant definition of a noun, the referent of this noun is characterized by its role in a particular situation, while the corresponding situation can usually be indicated by a clause containing this name. It follows from the above that participles are one of the means of relativization in the Russian language. With this interpretation, participial turnover (as well as a single participle used attributively) can be considered as a kind of relative, or relative (cf. English "relative") clause (see Relative sentences).

3. Real and passive participles

In a number of cases, the attributive participial clause turns out to be correlated in meaning with two independent structures that differ in voice, that is, in the syntactic position of the actants. So, for example, the participial clause from example (7) can be associated with both an independent clause in the active voice (8) and an independent clause in the passive voice (9).

(7) Character, created by Chaplin, becomes one of the main characters of the new circus… [Yu. K. Olesha. At the circus (1928)]

(8) Chaplin created the character.

(9) The character (was) created by Chaplin.

It can be seen that the passive construction (9) itself contains a short form of the same participle created, which is used in the analyzed attribute construction (7). In this sense, the correlation of the attributive construction (7) with the independent clause (9) would create an undesirable circularity. Instead, participial constructions of this kind are usually assigned to whichever of the two possible independent clauses uses the active voice construction. Thus, construction (7) and others similar to it are considered cases of direct complement relativization. This allows us to interpret the corresponding participles as passive, which is in line with generally accepted practice. With this approach, it turns out that the formation of passive participial relative clauses serves both relativization and expression of the category of voice (passivization).

In traditional Russian grammars, when defining participles, it is usually not the syntactic approach presented above, but the semantic approach [Grammatika 1953: 506], Grammar 1980: 665 (§1577)]. With this approach, definitions are usually based on the assertion that participles combine the meaning of process, characteristic of verbs, and the meaning of sign, characteristic of adjectives; sometimes it is said that with the help of participles, an action (process) is presented as a sign of an object. Within the framework of this approach, the opposition between real and passive participles is also usually carried out on semantic, and not on syntactic grounds, cf .:

“Depending on whether the sign is represented by the participle as active, that is, as characterizing by the action being performed, or as passive, that is, characterizing by the action being experienced, all participles are divided into real and passive<разрядка источника>» [Grammar 1980: 665 (§1577)].

Such a semantic interpretation is generally consistent with the understanding accepted here, however, for a number of reasons, it should still be recognized as vulnerable. Indeed, the phrases "action performed" and "action experienced" refer directly to those semantic roles that the participants in the respective situations have (for example, Agents and Patients). However, the properties of participles are in fact derived not from semantic roles directly, but from the properties of the basic diathesis of a particular verb, that is, from its typical correlation of semantic roles and syntactic positions. So, for example, for verbs endure, burn, break the base is such a diathesis in which the subject corresponds to the role of the Patient. Although, for example, person suffering,burnt house or broken elevator it can be said that these objects are characterized “by the experienced” (and not by the “performed”) action, the researchers still unanimously interpret the corresponding participles as valid.

A separate problem in the light of what has been said is participles with suffixes - yi(-Yusch), -ash (-box), -vsh and - w formed from reflexive verbs having a passive meaning:

(10) Tobacco factory under construction in Dagestan over time, it could also become an investor in the production of tobacco leaves in the region and its consumer ... ["Life of Nationalities" (2004)]

(11) Culture least of all chemical process studied by Prigogine.[“Safeguard” (2003)]

Participial phrases of this type can be correlated in meaning with sentences in which finite reflexive forms are used in a passive sense, cf. for the last two examples:

(12) In Dagestan under construction tobacco factory.

(13) (Some/this) chemical process studied Prigogine.

As you can see, the defined nouns from examples (10) and (11) are correlated in meaning with the subject constructions (12) and (13), in which reflexive forms are used in a passive meaning. Thus, forms like participles under construction, studied from the examples given, should be interpreted as real participles related to the subparadigm of the passive voice, the meaning of which is expressed by the reflexive postfix -sya. Therefore, in principle, a situation is possible in which, within the framework of the paradigm of one verb, coexists, for example, ( studied) and , referring to the subparadigm of the passive voice, containing the postfix -sya(being studied).

With the approach adopted here to the separation of real and passive participles, it turns out that, firstly, the process of forming participles does not lead to the appearance of a postfix in word forms -sya, and secondly, real and passive participles are clearly distinguished by the set of suffixes used in their formation.

4. Present participles and past participles

In Russian grammar, the existence of present participles and past participles is generally recognized. The basis for these traditional designations is most clearly seen in examples such as the following:

(14) - Where are you see kissing doves? “Only two old men,” said Dmitri Mikhalych. [F. Svetov. My Museum Discovery (2001)]

(15) I hear squealing and squealing opened iron beer caps. [F. Knorre. Stone Wreath (1973)]

(16) What is he thinks about missing gold? [YU. O. Dombrovsky. Faculty of Useless Things Part 5 (1978)]

(17) Do you remember those shot the Schultz brothers? [YU. O. Dombrovsky. Faculty of Useless Things (1978)]

In the first two examples given, the situations expressed by the participles are interpreted approximately in the same way as the finite forms of the present tense would be interpreted (cf. doves kiss,beer caps open), that is, as taking place at the time of observation. In the next two examples, participles have interpretations close to those that would characterize the finite forms of the past tense of the same verbs (cf. the gold is gone,the Shultz brothers were shot), that is, participles refer to situations that took place before the moment of observation. Thus, in the first two cases we have present participles, in the second two cases - past participles.

At the same time, the present and past participles are by no means always used in direct accordance with what tense form would be used if the desired meaning were expressed by the finite form of the verb. Moreover, there is no direct correspondence between the choice of participles of the present / past tense and whether the situation they designate takes place in the present or in the past of the Speaker. Consider the following two examples:

(18) The first three readers, callers to the editor and right those who answered to the questions will receive 1000 rubles each. ["Evening Moscow" (2002)]

(19) Behind Olya village saw working in the water of old people and teenagers . [AT. Gubarev. Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors (1951)]

In the first case, the "past participle" refers to a situation in the future; if this situation were denoted by the finite form of the verb, the future tense form of the verb would most likely be used (cf. first three readers to call and answer). In the second case, the "present participle" refers to a situation in the past; if this situation were indicated by the finite form of the verb, the past tense form of the verb would most likely be used (cf. old people and teenagers who worked in the water). Such a discrepancy between the categorical type (in a sense, a conventional name) of the participle and its temporal interpretation arises from the fact that in the above sentences, word forms are used as the main predicates, indicating situations in the future ( will receive) and in the past ( saw) respectively. These examples show that in order to establish the temporal reference of participles, not only their own categorical meaning, that is, their relation to the present or past in relation to the moment of speech, but also the relationship with another action (such grammatical meanings are usually called taxis) can be essential. So, in example (18), situations described by participles, those who called and answered, can occur after the moment of speech, but before the situation described by the verb will receive. In example (19), the situation described by the participle working, occurred before the moment of speech, but at the same time, the situation described by the verb saw.

When discussing participles used in the function of adjectival modifier, it is convenient to use the concept of a support form, first introduced in [Nedyalkov, Otaina 1987/2001: 299] when describing the taxis meanings of gerunds (see also the article Germinal participles). The support form (in relation to the attributively used participle) is the vertex verbal word form of the clause, which directly includes the name modified by the participle. So, in sentence (14) the supporting form for participle kissing is the predicate of the hierarchically closest clause - the form see, and in sentence (18) the support form for participles callers and those who answered is the predicate will receive.

Unlike the participle - by definition of a non-finite form - the support form is often an independent predicate, as in examples (11) - (16) above. However, the support form can in principle be dependent, in particular, non-finite, as in the following example:

(20) The night sky lit up with fireworks, arranged distraught, screaming "Korea! Korea!" crowd. [Izvestia (2002)]

In this case, the supporting form for participles distraught and screaming is a form of another participle - arranged, which in turn is supported by the form lit up. Regardless of whether a particular support form is independent finite, dependent finite or non-finite, its temporal reference is established without taking into account the properties of the dependent participial turnover. On the contrary, to determine the aspectual-temporal interpretation of the participle, the temporal reference of the support form can play a significant role, as in examples (18)–(19).

Thus, the semantic load of the opposition between “present participles” and “past participles” is generally not identical to the opposition of finite forms of the present and past tenses (see also the article Time and below). This problem is discussed separately for real (see Real participle / item 3. Contrasting real participles of the present and past tense) and passive (see Passive participle / item 3. Contrasting passive participles of the present and past tense) participles.

Discussing such problems, A. V. Isachenko comes to the following conclusion: “the traditional terms “present participle” and “past participle” that we use are conventional designations of forms and do not say anything about the general grammatical<разрядка источника>the semantics of these forms themselves” [Isachenko 1965/2003: 542]. This view is radical: it is difficult to agree that the traditional terms "nothing" say about the grammatical semantics of the present and past participles. However, it should be remembered that the attribution of one or another participle to the number of participles of the past or present tense is consistently based on a formal sign (determined by the type of suffix), and not on the sign of meaningful correlation with finite forms of the past or present tense.

5. Participles and other attributive verbal formations; participle adjectival problem

5.1. Participles and other attributive verbal formations

In addition to the participles themselves in the traditional sense, many other units formed from verbs also have the ability to act as name modifiers, for example, adjectives like diligent, creeping, stale, unfold readable etc. However, such formations are usually not included in the paradigms of the corresponding verbs, that is, they are not considered participles (some of these formations are sometimes called "pseudoparticiples", see Pseudoparticiples). In addition, there are verbal lexemes formed using the same suffixes as generally recognized participles, but at the same time, for one reason or another, breaking out of verbal paradigms and being treated not as participles, but as verbal adjectives (often homonymous with participles proper); the problems associated with such formations will be considered in.

Criteria that make it possible to distinguish between participles proper and other verbal formations of the adjective type are rarely named explicitly (see, however, [Plungyan 2010]). The main difference between participles and verbal adjectives is that participles are included in the paradigm of the corresponding verbs, while other verbal adjectives are associated with verbal lexemes only derivatively, derivatively. Thus, the search for criteria that distinguish participles proper and verbal adjectives should be carried out among those features that are used to distinguish between inflection and word formation. These include, in particular:

Separately, we should mention the paradigmatic criterion sometimes considered in this context - the presence / absence of parallelism between the set and meanings of the grammatical categories of finite forms and participles / verbal adjectives (type, tense, voice), see.

5.1.1. Productivity

In general, participles proper are more productive than other verbal attributive formations. However, two types of participles occupy a special place here.

5.1.2. Syntactic correlation

True participles are able to "inherit" most of the verb's syntactic characteristics in a regular manner. Thus, participles usually retain the fundamental ability to combine with the same circo constants as the finite forms of the corresponding verbs, and the set of active valences for actants in participles differs from the corresponding set for finite forms only by the absence of valences for the actant that is subject to relativization (to the subject with real participles and on a direct object with passive participles), and on the subject (for passive participles; “instead of” valence on the subject with passive participles, the valence on the agentive object in the instrumental case is fixed, cf. my neighbor bought a car and car bought by my neighbor). Methods for encoding actants are discussed in the article Syntax of participial phrases. No other attributive verbal formation demonstrates comparable syntactic parallelism with finite forms: in most of them, the number of possible dependents - both actants and sirconstants - is reduced more radically compared to finite forms of verbs, cf. student trying to solve a problem, but * schoolboy diligently solving a problem; snake crawling between stones, but * snake crawling between stones; the fish lies in the sun, but * fish lying in the sun; teenagers willingly read a magazine, but * magazine readable by teenagers.

5.1.3. Semantic Regularity

In participles (as in inflectional forms of verbs), the lexical meaning normally coincides with the lexical meaning of the finite forms of the same verbs, which can be interpreted as the maximum degree of semantic regularity. In other verbal attributive formations, the lexical meaning usually differs from the verbal one in essential components. This can either be due to more or less idiomatic increments, which is especially true for verbal adjectives homonymous with participles (cf. brilliant performance,(n)ouch clock, dropped voice), or due to the presence of relatively specific components of semantics that characterize entire word-building types of verbal adjectives (cf. chatty, grumpy or "increased ability to be acted upon" for adjectives like malleable, brittle, see [Plungyan 2010]).

Using the criterion of semantic regularity together with the criterion of syntactic correlation (see), we can say that nominal groups in which the vertex is modified by participle or participial turnover can normally be correlated - without adding or removing any lexical material - with simple sentences, in which the predicate is expressed by a finite synthetic form of the same verb (see). This is not typical for other verbal formations. So, for example, if there is seagull flying over the waves(participle), it is true that gull flying over the waves; against, flying squirrel(verbal adjective) is ‘a squirrel that (in principle) flies’, i.e. ‘a squirrel that can fly’ (but not necessarily ‘flying’ or ‘flying’).

5.1.4. Paradigmatic

The traditional names of the four participles seem to indicate the presence in the participle system of those oppositions that are also characteristic of finite forms of verbs. There is a point of view according to which the presence of grammatical categories typical for verbs (aspect, tense and voice) is the main difference between participles and all other verbal adjectival formations [Peshkovsky 1928/2001: 128]. In reality, this parallelism is partly imaginary, since the opposition of the present and past participles does not coincide in content with the opposition of the same grammes in finite forms of the verb, and the opposition of real and passive participles does not completely coincide with the contrast in pledge in finite forms (see about this issue and pledge article).

The joint use of the first three criteria discussed above (productivity, syntactic correlation, semantic regularity) as a whole makes it possible to oppose the four classes of "real participles" to other verbal formations of the adjective type (see also); in particular, these criteria make it possible to exclude from the number of participles all verbal adjectival units, in the formation of which other suffixes are used, except for the four named above.

However, it is practically impossible to use these criteria when evaluating individual uses of such units, which include suffixes typical of participles. The first difficulty is operational: in order to use the listed criteria, it is necessary to compare real recorded uses with imaginary ones, the properties of which are not amenable to direct observation. So, for example, in the case of an isolated (without dependent) use of a verbal formation with a suffix typical of participles, the question inevitably arises as to whether such a form could be used with verbal dependents and whether it would be possible in this case to say that it's the same unit. The second complexity is substantive: it consists in the fact that even “real participles” refer to a certain situation, in particular, to an action, as a sign of this or that object; in this sense, the participles obviously have a tendency to weaken the dynamic components present in the semantics of the verb. Thus, the difference between proper participles and verbal adjectives is related to the degree of weakening of verbal dynamic features: in verbal adjectives they are weakened even more than in participles. The next section is devoted to this problem.

5.2. Participle Adjectivation

In very many cases, units that outwardly coincide with undoubted participles are partially devoid of the properties of semantic and syntactic correlation with finite forms of the verb. This situation is described using the term participle adjectivation, which refers to the loss of part of the verbal semantic and syntactic properties, leading to a weakening of the connection between the adjectival formation and the verbal lexeme, and ultimately to the transition of a specific formation to the class of adjectives. Consider the following couple of examples:

(21) Tom and his companions, offended relatives and parents decide to leave home. [“Questions of Psychology” (2004)]

(22) Shekhtel valued this work very much, and there are very offended his letter, when, already in Soviet times, everyone was honored with awards for the anniversary of the theater, but they did not remember him. [Izvestia (2002)]

Both of these sentences use word forms formally arranged as passive past participles of the verb offend. At the same time, it can be noted that in (22) all the conditions characteristic of the situation of relativization of the direct object with the help of the passive participle are satisfied; in particular, the condition for the meaningfulness of this sentence is that at some point in the past there was a situation described by the sentence Relatives and parents offended Tom and his comrades. It is impossible to construct a similar correlative statement for the second sentence, cf. * letter offended. In this case, using the characteristic offended some signs of writing are indicated that are not associated with any situation localized in time described by the verb offend.

5.2.1. Signs indicating adjectival participles

Specific patterns of adjectivation differ for different types of participles and are described in the relevant sections (see Active present participle , , Passive present participle , ). What is common, however, is that adjectivation is primarily a gradual process of semantic development. Particular manifestations of this process may be, among other things, the following signs.

1) Lack of syntactic correlation (see just analyzed example offended letter), that is, the inability to act as a means of relativization. The application of this criterion, however, sometimes encounters certain difficulties. Indeed, the phrase offended letter it is fundamentally impossible to expand to an independent proposal. However, there are also very numerous cases when such a deployment is possible in principle, but the constructed finite sentences turn out to be clumsy, unnatural. So, for example, the noun phrase ringing sound(23 occurrences in the Corpus) can probably be "deployed" into a full clause the sound is ringing, but this use seems not quite natural (there are only 3 examples in the Corpus, where with the finite form of the verb ring subject would be used sound).

2) Loss of components of meaning associated with the localization of the situation in time and space: washable wallpaper, increased requirements- in these revolutions, while maintaining their usual interpretation, it is impossible to use the circumstances of time and place: # weekly washable wallpaper, # increased requirements last year).

3) Loss of the ability to attach dependent, characteristic of the corresponding verbal lexemes (cf. the difficulty of the agentive complement in combination common disease – ? common European disease or direct complement in combination awesome movie – ? awesome film viewers). At the same time, the absence of any participle typical for a verb in a particular word usage cannot in itself be considered a sign of adjectivation, since dependent forms of verbs, including those corresponding to valences, may also be absent in finite forms of verbs.

4) Development of the ability to combine with adverbs of measure and degree ( very, too much) in case the corresponding verbs do not demonstrate such ability ( very knowledgeable person / *man knows very well).

5) Individual shifts in the lexical meaning, indicating an exit from the verbal paradigm. For example, secured‘possessing prosperity, not knowing the need, comfortable’, next‘next in line after something’, brilliant‘outstanding, excellent’, decisive‘main, most important’. However, shifts in lexical meaning may not characterize individual adjective participles, but entire groups of the same type of participles (see articles on individual types of participles: Real participle of the present tense, Real participle of the past tense, Passive participle of the present tense, Passive participle of the past tense).

5.2.2. Signs indicating the preservation of the status of the sacrament

Along with the manifestations of adjectivation (see), some signs can be listed that indicate the preservation of the status of the sacrament; some of these features are mirror images of those just listed.

It is fundamentally impossible to draw a clear line between “still participles” and “already adjectives”, which have ceased to be word forms of verbs. The ability to adjectivize is an inherent property inherent in the very nature of Russian participles; almost any Russian participle is capable of demonstrating it to one degree or another. In the sections devoted to individual types of participles, the main ways of adjectivization characteristic of the corresponding types are named.

For practical purposes, in particular for calculations, decisions made in the Subcorpus with removed homonymy will be used: here, most word usages are assigned one interpretation - they are parsed either as participles or as adjectives. However, one should be aware that any binary markup in this area is fundamentally conditional. Indicative, for example, in this respect are the following two examples from the Subcorpus with removed homonymy: both of them contain the form flowering, while in the first case it is parsed as a real participle of the present tense from the verb blossom, and in the second - as an adjective flowering:

(23) The wasteland can also be turned into a flowering garden if it is hereditary; and an ownerless flowering garden will turn into a wasteland. [YU. Davydov. Blue Tulips (1988–1989)]

(24) After darkening for a few seconds, the arena turned into a flowering garden. [AND. E. Keogh. Illusions without illusions (1995-1999)]

6. Grammatical categories of participles and syntactic functions of participles

In all word forms related to a particular participle, the same set of grammatical features characteristic of verbs is realized (see). These grammatical features are expressed outside the ending, that is, in the stem of the participle (including the participle suffix itself), with the help of a reflexive postfix (if any) and in rare cases in an analytical way (see below).

Inflectional categories of participles are somewhat conventionally called those categories that are realized with the help of inflections (endings) in participle word forms; the set of these categories is close to the composition of the inflectional categories of adjectives (see).

6.1. Verb categories in participles

This section looks at how the following verb categories are represented in participles:

6.1.1. View

Being forms of the verb, that is, entering the paradigm of the verbal lexeme, the participles retain all the classifying categories of the verb, in particular the category of the species (see Species): every participle is formed from a perfective verb or from an imperfective verb. Whether the verb belongs to the perfect or imperfect form significantly affects the composition of possible participles: past and present participles are regularly formed from imperfective verbs, and only past participles from perfective verbs.

The literature is dominated by the notion that participles “have consistently carried out throughout the category of the meaning of the verb species” [Peshkovsky 1928/2001: 128]. Being generally correct, such a representation creates the illusion that the set of particular aspectual meanings of specific participles will coincide with the set of particular aspectual meanings of the "corresponding" finite forms of the present and past tense, which is not entirely accurate in two respects - 1) one or another of the aspectual interpretations of the participle may be absent from the corresponding finite form (see) and 2) on the contrary, the aspectual interpretation that is present in the finite form may be absent from the participle (see).

6.1.1.1. Aspectual interpretation of participles, absent in the corresponding finite forms

In a number of cases, participles receive specific readings that are absent from the "corresponding" finite forms. The most striking case of this kind is the presence of not only actional (dynamic) but also static interpretations in the passive participles of the past tense, which are absent or weakened in the corresponding finite forms. This problem has been developed in detail in the studies of Yu. P. Knyazev and E. V. Paducheva, mainly on the basis of the use of participles in the composition of the predicate (in their composition, short forms of participles can receive a perfect reading) [Knyazev 1989], [Knyazev 2007: 486–490] , [Paducheva 2004: 495–503]. However, the attributive uses of the passive past participles allow a static interpretation:

(25) The secret of “revitalization” of the moai, completely lost for so many centuries, may well be used today - for example, in construction when installing power transmission towers. [“Technology for Youth” (1989)] – *The secret to “revitalizing” the moai has been completely lost for so many centuries

Another case of the appearance of aspectual meanings in participles that are absent in the corresponding finite forms is the ability of the passive participles of the past tense of verbs CB to be used in a limited multiple, and not in a total meaning, in combination with multiplicity circumstances [Kholodilova 2011: 84]:

(26) Name A.N. Afanasiev is known to every Russian person, because the most beloved and memorable book of our childhood, read and retold many times, is called “A.N. Afanasiev. Tales” (Yandex, [Kholodilova 2011: 84])

With the composed finite forms CB and NSW, the general circumstance of multiplicity is impossible, cf. * read and reread many times.

6.1.1.2. The participle lacks an aspectual interpretation that is possible for the corresponding finite forms

Another type of discrepancy between the aspectual potential of participial and finite forms is the situation where the participle does not have certain aspectual readings that are possible for the corresponding finite forms. This includes, among other things, the inability of the passive participles of the NSV past tense "to designate an action in the course of its course", or rather, their specialization in the expression "general factual, limited multiple and other retrospective meanings" [Knyazev 2007: 489]. The few examples recorded in the Corpus, in which such participles are used in other meanings, for example, iterative (27) or conative, refer to texts of the 18th–19th centuries and mostly sound archaic [Kholodilova 2011: 82].

(27) ... Proof of the size of these pantries are duties, collected in Alexandria annually with import and export, which, despite their cheapness, exceeded 37,000,000 livres. [N. I. Novikov. On Trade in General (1783)]

In addition to the above, it can be noted that in a number of cases participles turn out to be comparable in terms of the set of fundamentally accessible aspectual readings with the corresponding finite forms, but differ from them in the nature of the restrictions on the realization of these meanings or in the distribution of the frequencies of forms with different aspectual interpretations (see [Knyazev 1989] , [Kholodilova 2011: 85–86]).

6.1.2. Pledge and return

As part of participles, the reflexive postfix always has the form -sya, but not - camping, contrary to the general rules for the distribution of variants -sya / -ss(see Recurrence / clause 1.3. Postfix options).

The combination within one word form of suffixes of passive participles and a postfix -sya in the Russian literary language is impossible (regardless of the meaning of this postfix).

With the approach adopted here, the actual process of forming participles from verbs whose finite forms do not have a postfix -sya, is never accompanied by the appearance of this postfix. For such formations, the category of pledge is manifested in the opposition of real and passive participles. In particular, short forms of passive past participles are used in the formation of analytical passive forms (see Pledge).

The situation is somewhat more complicated with participles of verbs, in the finite forms of which there are forms with a reflexive postfix.

For those transitive (non-reflexive) verbs in which it is possible to form finite passive forms with the help of a reflexive postfix, participles with suffixes of real participles are also found within the passive subparadigm. Thus, for example, the verb consider, which has finite forms of the passive voice ( considered, considered etc.), there are actually real participles ( contemplating, contemplating), and real participles belonging to the subparadigm of the passive voice, marked with a reflexive postfix ( pending,considered). At the same time, the formation of the latter is described as consisting of two relatively independent processes: passivation, marked with a postfix, and the formation of real participles with the help of participle suffixes.

Finally, and for the majority of reflexive verbs, in which the postfix is ​​not associated with marking the voice category (and is fixed in all finite forms), the formation of participles also does not affect the feature "reflexivity / irrevocability" (cf. laugh and laughing, laughing; learn and learner, learner etc.). However, there are two types of exceptions:

Passive participles of the type agreed, correlated with the reflexive finite verb ( agree), cm. ;

Dialect formations of the type working(from work), cm. .

6.1.2.1. Irreversible passive participles associated with a reflexive verb

In Russian, there are participles containing suffixes of passive participles (primarily the past tense), which correlate in meaning with reflexive verbs (see, as well as the discussion in [Knyazev 1989: 193–196], [Knyazev 2007: 533–551] and especially in [Kholodilova 2011: 40–48]). This model of correlation is most obvious for those cases when finite forms of the corresponding verb without reflexives simply do not exist, cf. agreed, which is comparable in meaning to agree(cf. * condition), or when such reflexive verbs themselves are non-correlative, that is, they are not connected by regular relations with the corresponding non-reflexive ones, cf. crazy(associated with go crazy, but not with interfere), agreed(associated with reach an agreement, but not with to finish), confused(associated with get confused, but not with lose). Here adjoin participial formations, which are close in meaning primarily to reflexive verbs, although they, in turn, are derived from correlative non-reflexive verbs according to one of the productive models. So, enamored refers to the situation described by the verb fall in love, but not necessarily fall in love. Finally, there are also passive participial formations, which in a certain context are correlated in meaning precisely with reflexive verbs; yes, normal combed will be used in relation to a person who himself combed my hair(though not required) broken can refer to a causative situation described by a transitive verb smash, but in a certain context it can acquire decausative semantics characteristic of the verb crash(see Recurrence / clause 2.3. Decausative):

(28) Often with such intensive use, various breakdowns occur: a broken joystick, scratched or even broken when the screen falls, the speakers fail . (Yandex), example from [Kholodilova 2011: 44]

Some of these formations satisfy the key criteria used to distinguish participles from other verbal adjectives (see); moreover, they are characterized by a certain degree of productivity, as evidenced by their extensive fixation in colloquial and informal speech ( hired; cracked up to the ears; question concerningWindows[Kholodilova 2011: 44–46]). Thus, one of their possible interpretations is to consider these formations as passive participles of reflexive verbs. With this approach, in this marginal case, when the participles are formed, the return indicator is removed, just as it happens when the action names are formed (cf., for example, striving, striving, touch and strive, try, touch).

6.1.2.2. Dialect and vernacular formations of the type working

In dialect and substandard speech, some formations are recorded that look like real participles of the present tense, devoid of a reflexive indicator, but correlated in meaning with reflexive verbs: working(= laborer)issuing(= outstanding), partly suitable(= suitable) and even washing(= washable):

(29) I want to choose wallpaper for the kitchen, they say that washing wallpaper- the best option for the kitchen. (forum http://peredelka-forum.ru)

The status of such forms is not entirely clear. Apparently, such formations penetrate into texts in literary Russian through imitation of dialect speech or vernacular, while we are talking about the use of single forms, and not about a productive process. In fact, in such cases, it is not dialect participles proper that end up in literary texts, but adjectives developed on their basis, often stylistically colored.

6.1.2.3. Interpretation of recurrence and pledge in participles

So, in the normal case, the formation of participles in the Russian language does not affect the category of " reflexivity / irreversibility", inherited from generating verbs. Exceptions relate to marginal cases, when the formation of participles is accompanied by the removal of a return indicator from the composition of the word form.

(33) I would like to rest you, as you should to be treated, maybe he would have lived some more, worked… [I. I. Kataev. Heart (1928)]

(34) Her would marry, at least for someone, but she’s in the shooting range ... [G. Shcherbakov. Ah, Manya... (2002)]

However, it is significant that among the participles combined with would, the vast majority are real past participles; thus, such analytical participial formations turn out to be parallel to the finite forms of the subjunctive mood (representing, from a formal point of view, a combination of a particle would with the past tense of the verb). This suggests that such combinations are to some extent drawn into the system of forms of the Russian verb.

Combinations of real past participles with a particle would noted in the literature; it is usually said that they are of a marginal nature and that therefore they should not be included in the participle system of the Russian language, cf. "found only in a few writers and are not the norm of the literary language" [Grammar 1953: 510].

Usually, in the examples discussed in such cases, the situation expressed by the support form refers to the irrealis zone, and the particle would as part of the participial turnover, it only repeatedly (excessively) expresses the semantics of irreality. So, for example, in the following example would, apparently, can be omitted as part of the participial turnover, since this participle turnover is covered by the scope of the marker would from the main clause:

(35) But would be found in that case, the person would agree sacrifice your life for the endless viewing of this amazing film? [WITH. Alexievich. Zinc Boys (1984-1994)]

Wed constructible: But in that case there would be a person agreed sacrifice your life?

In example (31) above, the irreality in the main clause is not marked, but the meaning of the main sentence is such that it refers to a certain category of information, the identification of which is planned, but not yet implemented; with the help of participial turnover, these information are characterized through their role in some possible situation in the future. In such cases, the participle with a particle would usually easily interchangeable with the present participle, which has a "timeless" meaning, cf. constructible:

(36) At the same time, every effort is made to identify information conducive identification and detention of persons involved in the work of the transmitter.

That the sacrament is without a marker would can “carry a charge of subjunctiveness”, is clearly seen in the following example:

(37) And in these terrible, pale blue mornings, clicking with my heel through the desert of the city, I imagined a man, lost reason because it would begin to clearly feel the movement of the globe. [AT. V. Nabokov. Spy (1930)]

Here is the basic form for the sacrament imagined sets the context of one of the "possible worlds", so that the situation described by the participle (loss of reason) belongs to the zone of irrealis. However, the usual form of the actual participle is used; it is noteworthy, however, that this participle itself serves as a support form for the subordinate clause, in which the finite form is already used, while the form of the subjunctive mood ( would start). Thus, without being formally marked on the basis of the subjunctive, the participle may well correspond to the semantics of the finite forms of the subjunctive mood.

So, in the considered cases, the particle would as part of participial turnover is optional. In other words, it should be recognized that ordinary participles, out of combination with a particle would, in principle can refer to situations that in an independent clause would be expressed using subjunctive forms. L.P. Kalakutskaya comes to such an idea after analyzing examples of the type I will read any book that came out from under his pen. She notes that such constructions are interchangeable with constructions of the type I would read any book that came out from under his pen and that "the meaning of such constructions is completely covered by the meaning of the usual use of the verbal mood" [Kalakutskaya 1971: 11].

However, sometimes the use of a particle would as part of the participial phrase seems to be grammatically obligatory. This is observed when some participant in the situation, expressed by the support form, is characterized with the help of participial turnover through the role that he would play in some other situation, while this other situation turns out to be an imaginary modification of the situation expressed by the support form.

(38) The collar of the white shirt was intercepted with a dark lace: detail, in other circumstances seeming elegant, on the threshold of the village school looked at least strange - as if the teacher had completely decided to hang himself ... [M. Dyachenko, S. Dyachenko. Magicians can do anything (2001)]

(39) Lena's steps, afternoon extinguished would in the noise of the street, as in a carpet, they now resounded with merciless slaps. [T. Nabatnikov. Cat's Birthday (2001)]

Particularly noteworthy is the use in such cases of circumstances that explicitly indicate the differences between the properties of the situation, the expressed support form, and the “imaginary” situation: in other circumstances in the first example, afternoon in the second (the condition for the meaningfulness of the second sentence is that the situation Lena's steps resounded with merciless slaps. does not take place during the day).

Interestingly, such uses are fully consistent with the interpretation of participles as one of the means of relativization, in which, in particular, some independent clause is put in correspondence with participial turnover (see). So, for example, in order for the last sentence to be meaningful, it is necessary that the following constructed statement with a finite form of the subjunctive mood be true:

(40) In the afternoon, Lena's steps would be extinguished in the noise of the street.

Moreover, for the cases described, the real past participle with the particle would turns out to be the only somewhat acceptable relativization strategy using participles (constructed examples with ordinary, non-subjunctive examples are strikingly different in semantics from the fixed construction: Steps,during the day, the streets extinguished in the noise ...;footsteps fading away in the noise of the street during the day ...).

So, participles in Russian are incompatible neither with the meaning of the imperative, nor with the grammes of the imperative. In some cases, ordinary participles can express situations that, in an independent clause, would be expressed by the forms of the subjunctive mood (thus, the semantic opposition of the indicative and subjunctive moods is partially neutralized in the participle zone). At the same time, cases of the use of structures that can be interpreted as real participles of the subjunctive mood are recorded (these are combinations of ordinary real participles of the past tense and particles would). Moreover, in some cases this construction turns out to be the only possible participatory relativization strategy (however, it is worth remembering that other means of relativization can be used in appropriate communicative situations; moreover, it is quite possible to imagine that in these situations Speakers can statistically avoid using constructions with relativization).

6.1.4. Time

The traditional names of Russian participles seem to indicate that they express the category of time. It should be remembered, however, that the semantic opposition of present and past participles (the rules for choosing participles of one time or another) is not identical to the opposition of present and past tenses in finite forms of the verb, see. Strictly speaking, the tense of the participles is not quite the same category as the ordinary tense (finite forms) of the verb. Within the framework of the participle system, time behaves like a classifying category, contrasting the participles of the present and past tense, see about them Real participle / p.1. Contrasting real participles of the present and past tense and Passive participle / item 1. Contrasting the passive participles of the present and past tense).

6.2. Inflectional categories of participles

When talking about the inflection of participles, that fragment of the paradigm of verb forms is meant, which is united by the common participial stem. Thus, the forms of participles playing, coming or mentioned all synthetic word forms are recognized in which stems are found playing-, coming- and mentioned- respectively, and not only those of these forms that are capable of acting in an attributive function (although this function is used in determining participles).

Above, the opposition of real and passive participles, as well as past and present participles, was also introduced based on their use in the attributive function (see,). However, traditional participle designations apply to all participial forms with the same stems; so, for example, all word forms with stem mentioned-(not only full forms mentioned, mentioned, mentioned etc. but short forms mentioned, mentioned, mentioned and mentioned) are considered forms of the passive past participle.

If some categories characteristic of verbs are expressed as part of the participle stems (see), then with the help of inflections of participles inflectional categories are expressed, typical for adjectives: gender, number, case and animation; also, in addition to the full (attributive) forms characteristic of all participles without exception, passive participles also have short (predicative) forms, see the possibility of their formation for participles of different types in).

The formation of synthetic or analytical degrees of comparison characteristic of many adjectives in proper participles is usually impossible. The possibility of such formations is one of the manifestations [Isachenko 1965/2003: 540] (for example, more loved, appreciated[Kholodilova 2011: 11], more flourishing species, the most eminent scientist[Bogdanov et al. 2007: 534]).

6.3. Syntactic functions of participles

This section will consider the syntactic functions that participial clauses can perform in a sentence. Here we will use the calculus proposed in for adjectival lexemes and including 5 types of usage, organized in an ordered semantic map. If you arrange these five types in order of increasing predicativity, then you should consider sequentially:

1) restrictive usages ( a monkey infected with a strain of poliovirus type 2 did not get sick), cm. ;

2) applied non-restrictive usages ( Irina, blinded by hatred, did not even consider him), cm. ;

3) depictive uses ( he returned loaded), cm. ;

5) proper predicative uses ( the door was open), cm. .

In parallel, the question of the use of full or short forms of participles will be discussed.

6.3.1. Usage: restrictive and non-restrictive

As follows from what was used at the beginning of this article, any participle can act in an attributive position, that is, as an agreed definition. Like other definitions, participles can be used as restrictive and non-restrictive (appositive) attributes. In the first case, with the help of the participle, the set of referents denoted by the vertex noun (with other definitions depending on it) is narrowed:

(41) A monkey infected with a strain of poliovirus type 2 did not get sick, but a monkey infected with a strain of poliovirus type 3 isolated on the 16th day of illness did. ["Issues of Virology" (2002)]

With the restrictive use of participles, the predicative beginning is manifested in them to the least extent, since the meaning of the corresponding forms is not included in the zone of assertion (for example, the fact that two different monkeys were infected with two different strains of viruses is not included in the zone of assertion in the given example), and the situation , denoted by the participle, is called in order to clarify the reference of certain objects (in the given example, monkeys). Restrictive participles and participial phrases cannot be linearly detached from the nominal group with which they correspond.

In the second case, that is, with the appositive (non-restrictive) use of participles, some characteristic of the modified name is reported, while no narrowing of the reference is observed. In particular, as in the case of other modifiers, participles modifying singular proper names or finite pronouns can only be interpreted non-restrictively:

(42) Irina, blinded by hatred, did not even look at him. [AT. Tokarev. Own Truth (2002)]

Usually, non-restrictive definitions are used to convey some background, side information, often in such cases, additional semantic relationships are established between the content of the participial clause and the content of the main clause - causal, concessive, etc. In such cases, there is an intonational isolation of the participial clause; according to written sources, it is difficult to establish exactly in which cases such isolation is supposed, however, cases of prepositive use of participle clauses are indicative to a certain extent: unlike restrictive prepositive participles and participial phrases, non-restrictive participles and participial phrases in writing are separated from the modified nominal group by a comma:

(43) Struck by the determination of Venizelos, King Constantine believed that this mobilization would not yet be carried out against the Central Powers. [BUT. K. Kolenkovsky. Dardanelles operation (1930)].

Unlike restrictive participles and participial phrases, non-restrictive participles and phrases can linearly “break away” from their vertex names (at the same time, they still enter into an agreement relationship with them).

(44) The pines creaked deafly, swayed by the wind, and only the woodpecker toiler pecked and pecked somewhere above, as if he wanted to peck low clouds and see the sun ... [S. Kozlov. Is it true we will always be? (1969-1981)]

6.3.2. Depictive uses

The so-called “depictives”, in which predicativity is even more pronounced, adjoin non-restrictive uses (see). Depictives are such uses of structures that are attributive in nature, when:

a) there is some referent that is a semantic actant in the main predication, i.e., in the predication headed by the supporting verb;

b) the attributive form (secondary predication) does not form a single component with the corresponding name;

c) at the same time, the attributive form describes a certain situation that takes place at the moment of the implementation of the action expressed by the supporting verb.

The definition from is used here, see also).

Like adjectives, participles can be used as part of depictives. Like adjectives, participles in depictives can be used either in the same case form as the noun phrase denoting the corresponding referent in the main clause (45), or in the instrumental form (46), for depictive uses of the instrumental, see Instrumental / item 2.3.12. Moreover, in both cases they are consistent with the central participant in the categories of gender and number:

(45) Himself returned loaded like a train porter. [YU. Nagibin. Riot Island (1994)]

(46) Give tolma watered juice, which was formed during stewing. [Recipes of national cuisines: Armenia (2000-2005)]

Apparently, case-consistent depictives are gradually falling out of use: participial depictives in the instrumental case become predominant. For the factors governing the choice between these two options, see, among other things, [Rakhilina, Kuznetsova in press].

The depictive uses of participles are in many ways similar to the so-called. complementary uses (such as saw him leaving the house), cm. .

6.3.3. Complementary uses

The complementary function of participles is spoken of in cases where participles fill the semantic valence of verbs of perception or, less often, mental activity.

(47) She saw his tough, bold directness, his inspiration; saw him reciting poems; I saw him drinking a laxative. [AT. Grossman. Life and Destiny (1960)]

With the complementary use of participles, one of the referents participating in the situation denoted by the participle is realized as a syntactic actant of the main verb; so, in (48) Matte occupies the position of the direct object in the support form think. In this respect, such constructions are similar to depictive participial constructions (see). The main difference between these two types of structures concerns the fact that, in depictive use, the referent of the name turns out to be not only a syntactic, but also a semantic actant of the main predication, and the situation denoted by the participle is not included in the actant structure of the supporting form. So, in example (45), the actant of the verb come back is an is he, but not the situation described by the participle loaded(A consequence of this property is that usually the participial phrase in the composition of the depictive can be omitted without violating grammatical correctness). In complementary usage, on the contrary, the actant structure of the support form includes the situation, but not the referent of the name. So, in example (48) Matte is not a semantic actant of the verb think(although it is its direct complement); verb think has a sentential actant that could be expressed by the construction Stein enters ... in the top five. The omission of the participial phrase in such constructions leads to grammatical errors (* This gave grounds in those years to consider Stein) or to a significant change in the actant structure of the support form ( saw him reciting poetry= ‘I saw him reciting verses’, ¹ ‘I saw him’).

In modern Russian, participles used in a complementary function almost always take the form of the instrumental case and agree with “their” participant in gender and number, as in the examples given.

In the texts of previous periods, the complementary participial construction with verbs of perception was dominated by a strategy in which the participle agreed in case with “its own” noun phrase, that is, with the group with which the participle is connected in meaning. Considering that we are talking mainly about the situation of subordinating the participle to transitive verbs, in fact, in such constructions, the form of the accusative case of the participle was used:

(49) Pushkin, seeing him fall, threw up a pistol and shouted: "Bravo!" [AT. A. Zhukovsky. Letter to S.L. Pushkin (1837)]

In modern texts, such a construction is used extremely rarely, however, isolated examples of use are still recorded:

(50) But one day I saw her standing in the horse yard and her feet were splattered with mud. [YU. Azarov. Suspect (2002)]

How quickly the usage changed in this fragment of the grammar is illustrated by the data given in the following table. Here is the number of examples from the Corpus on demand: verb see(in any form) + pronouns is he, she is or they in the form of the accusative case + participle in the form of the accusative or instrumental case. Manually removed "garbage", that is, examples in which the participle still does not perform a complementary function.

Table 1. Participles in the complementary function of the verb see according to the texts of different eras: agreed participles and participles in the instrumental case

According to the data given in the table, it can be seen that the turning point occurred in the middle of the 19th century - from about that time, participles in the complementary function with the verb see quickly go out of use. In addition, the data in Table 1 show that over time, the overall frequency of complementary participles (at least with the verb see) decreases (pairwise differences between periods are statistically significant, χ2 test, in both cases p<.05).

With verbs of mental activity (such as, for example, think, believe, assume etc.) at all stages of the development of the Russian language, reflected in the Corpus, participles in the complementary function were used only in the instrumental case:

(51) For a long time we considered him kidnapped by those people who were looking for you and your wife here [V. T. Narezhny. Bursak (1822)]

In all the cases listed so far (that is, with restrictive and non-restrictive applicative use (see), as well as in depictive (see) and complementary constructions), participles are used almost exclusively in full form (for rare and generally archaic exceptions, see . [Kholodilova 2011: 24]).

6.3.4. Predicative uses

Finally, participles can be part of the predicate, that is, they can be used predicatively. This class of usage includes combinations with a linking verb be and semi-coupling verbs ( become, seem etc.).

As in the case of adjectives, only in this syntactic position are short forms really used, however, the ratio of short and full forms should be discussed separately for various types of participles. In addition, in terms of the very ability to act as part of the predicate participle, they differ significantly. All types of participles behave differently in the predicative position:

6.3.4.1. Real past participles in predicative position

The real participles of the past tense in the literary language in the predicative position are used to a limited extent. At the same time, not a single reliable use of short forms of such participles has been recorded in the Corpus (cf. * the fire was extinguished etc.).

As for the full forms of the real past participles, they are occasionally used in a predicative position, but mostly these are participles of intransitive verbs CB, denoting a change in state, while used without dependents. For such participles, one can usually talk about a certain degree of adjectivation (see (see and Real participle of the past tense / item 4. Adjectivation of real participles of the past tense): they have stative semantics and denote the resulting state that occurs as a result of reaching the natural limit of the situation, as in the following two examples:

(52) So, in the crowns of about 50% of trees after ground fires, needles was yellowed. ["Forestry" (2004)]

(53) I don't even know the name of that river. Muddy was shallow. She crawled like a snake between the slippery shores. [E. Khaetskaya. Blue Dragonflies of Babylon / Finding Enkidu (1997)]

As with other types of compound nominal predicate, in this context, with an explicit connective, both instrumental (52) and nominative participle (53) forms are possible; the first possibility is realized more frequently.

6.3.4.2. Real present participles in predicative position

The use of real participles of the present tense as part of a predicate with a linking verb be almost always speaks of one degree or another of adjectivation ( the museum was amazing, the news was overwhelming). However, the (few) cases of using real participles of the present tense in this position are discussed in [Bogdanov 2011: 108–111], cf. the following example given in this work:

(54) People at the factory wasreading, "Star" was loved and willingly subscribed to it. (from the Internet)

A. V. Bogdanov notes that in such a position participles cannot have ordinary verbal dependents [Bogdanov 2011: 111], which in the usual sense is just one of the manifestations of adjectivation.

The real participles of the present tense, however, are used somewhat more freely with semi-coupling verbs, while in such contexts the restriction on the presence of dependents no longer applies, that is, the corresponding formations are no longer necessarily used in adjectival meanings:

(55) At the same time, she got stuck and raised her upper body so that seemed worthwhile on the back legs. [YU. O. Dombrovsky. The monkey comes for his skull (1943-1958)] - cf. ??? was worth on hind legs

Actually real participles of the present tense in modern Russian do not have short forms. The possibility of the formation of such forms in units that have the morphemic structure of real participles of the present tense is a manifestation of their adjectivation (see), compare, for example, the mention of constructions like He is very knowledgeable in [Isachenko 1965/2003: 543], [Bogdanov 2011: 109] .

6.3.4.3. Passive present participles in the predicative position

Short forms of passive participles of the present tense, in principle, can be used as part of predicates with a linking verb be, however, in modern language they are rarely used in this way and usually sound archaic:

(56) Their liturgical charter, texts, literature, legal and canonical traditions were determined and forever determined by Byzantium. [AND. Meyendorff. Spiritual and Cultural Revival of the XIV century and the fate of Eastern Europe (1992)]

The full forms of passive participles of the present tense are not used predicatively in modern Russian. The corresponding forms can be used in combination with a bunch, but this always indicates a certain degree of adjectivation (see):

(57) Our parking lot was guarded, for employees, but the guard either slept or did not see the criminal, or maybe he was at the same time with him. [AT. Golyakhovsky. Russian doctor in America (1984-2001)]

In this example, we are not talking about a description of the situation conveyed by the verb guard, but about classifying a particular parking lot as a protected one. In the 18th and, partly, the first half of the 19th century, full forms of passive present participles could be used predicatively and convey dynamic situations (as in the following two examples), but such constructions are not used in modern Russian:

(58) ... Ingria, Ancient Russian Province, through many years unrighteously under the Swedish yoke was held… [BUT. I. Bogdanov. Description of St. Petersburg (1751)]

(59) The villagers everywhere fight off our troops and slaughter detachments, which, of necessity, are sent to find food (Denis Davydov. 1812. (1825))

6.3.4.4. Passive past participles in the predicative position

Passive past participles, unlike other types of participles, are used predicatively very often. Combinations of short forms of these participles with verb forms be form analytical forms of the passive voice, see the article Voice. The question of the status of constructions with a copula and full forms of passive past participles is complicated, see the discussion of constructions like the door must be open / the door must be open in Voice/Analytic Forms of the Passive Voice and Connective Constructions.

6.3.5. Generalization

Thus, participles show a wide range of syntactic functions, from purely attributive (see) to purely predicative (see). The first pole is characterized by the use of consistent full forms, the second - short forms; some intermediate functions can fulfill instrumental forms of full participles.

7. A set of participial forms depending on the grammatical characteristics of the verb

As mentioned above (see), the full set of possible participles of Russian verbs includes four varieties:

• real participles of the present tense;
• real participles of the past tense;
• passive participles of the present tense;
• passive past participles.

To this it should be added that for those transitive verbs that allow the formation of reflexive passive forms (that is, for a subset of imperfective verbs, see Voice), along with the actual participles, real participles of the subparadigm of the passive voice expressed by the reflexive postfix (such as under construction), cm. .

Articles devoted to specific participles (Real participle of the present tense, Real participle of the past tense, Passive participle of the present tense, Passive participle of the past tense) describe private restrictions on the formation of certain participial forms. However, some general characteristics of such restrictions should be dealt with immediately. These are the restrictions associated with the valence characteristics of the verb (see), and the restrictions associated with the aspectual characteristics of the verb (see).

7.1. Restrictions associated with the valence characteristics of the verb

The first group of restrictions is related to the valence characteristics of the verb.

7.1.1. Restrictions on the formation of real participles

Since real participles are a means of relativizing the subject (see), normally they cannot be formed from verbs that do not have a syntactic valency to the subject in the nominative case, that is, from impersonal verbs ( get light, get colder, dusk, shiver, vomit, believe, think etc.).

Sometimes, however, deviations from this limitation are recorded. So, for example, real participles are sometimes used from such meteorological verbs, which are traditionally considered impersonal (see Impersonality / clause 1.2. Restrictions on inflection and word formation characteristic of impersonal verbs).

(60) But, lying down at his feet and not even looking at his master, but looking into evening garden, the dog immediately realized that his owner was in trouble. [M. A. Bulgakov. Master and Margarita (1929-1940)]

Perhaps this is due to the fact that such verbs actually allow limited use with a pronounced subject, mainly in fiction:

(61) Some kind of force pushed him out into the deserted, silent yard without soldiers, and he wandered into the garden, behind a deaf garden of bushes, where it got dark in front of his eyes in the shadows apple trees and cool it was evening overgrown with grass Earth. [O. Pavlov. Matyushin case (1996)]

Another class of recorded deviations is the use of real participles from verbs with the meaning of presence or absence, in finite forms of which there is no subject in the nominative case; with the help of such real participles, the participant is sometimes relativized, which, under finite forms, would be encoded by the genitive case:

(62) “Leva, how dear you are to me” (he asks me three pennies missing for a glass of beer). [E. Gerstein. Extra love (1985-2002)] - cf. ok, three kopecks were missing for a mug of beer, but??? three kopecks were missing for a mug of beer

However, such uses are apparently on the verge of the literary norm or beyond it.

7.1.2. Restrictions on the formation of passive participles

Since passive participles are a means of relativizing the direct object (see), they cannot be formed from verbs that do not have syntactic valence for a direct object, that is, from intransitive verbs. There are a few exceptions to this restriction, see Syntax of participial phrases / item 3 about them. Syntax of turns with passive participles.

In addition, impersonal verbs do not form passive participles, in which the only participant is made out in the accusative case; so, proper impersonal verbs do not form passive participles, such as vomit, vomit, cf. *vomited, *chilled. At the same time, in some cases, participial constructions can be correlated in meaning with impersonal sentences if ordinary transitive verbs are impersonally used in them, cf. the following two examples:

(63) Through stuffy ears, through tightly and tightly stretched membranes, the voice of Lerka still made its way to him from afar. [AT. Astafiev. Sad Detective (1982-1985)]

(64) The barrel obediently froze, Snap yelled with such force that my ears were blocked. [D. Dontsov. King Pea Dollars (2004)]

7.2. Verb aspect restrictions

The second group of restrictions is related to the absence of present participles in perfective verbs; (cf. the absence of real or passive participles of the present tense in the verb draw, in the presence of the corresponding participles from the verb draw: drawing, drawing). This limitation follows logically from the absence and finite forms of the present tense in these verbs.

7.3. Generalization: a possible set of participial forms from different classes of verbs

Thus, depending on their characteristics, Russian verbs are in principle capable of forming a different number of participles:

1) Transitive imperfective verbs are able to form all four participles ( drawing, drawing, drawing, drawing). In addition, as part of their passive subparadigm, characterized by the presence of a postfix -sya, two more real participles are possible (present and past tense, respectively: drawing, drawing).

2) Transitive perfective verbs can only form the real and passive participles of the past tense ( painted, drawn) .

3) Intransitive imperfective verbs, in principle, are able to form real participles of the present and past tenses ( seated, seated).

4) Intransitive perfective verbs are able to form only real participles of the past tense ( shrunken).

5) Impersonal verbs of both types do not normally form participles.

It has been repeatedly noted in the literature that the theoretical possibilities to form participles of different types are not implemented in Russian verbs to the same extent. In order to clearly illustrate this thesis, let us turn to the calculations for the Subcorpus with the homonymy removed. The following table shows the total number of full forms of participles of different types, depending on the aspect and transitivity of the verb.

Table 2. Frequency of full forms of participles of various types depending on the type and transitivity of the verb

	transitive verbs
action present
action past
suffering present
suffering past

Looking at this table, the following becomes clear.

1) Significantly ahead in frequency of all other types of participles are the passive participles of the past tense of the verbs SV ( killed, found, published etc.), even if we do not take into account the predicative use of short forms (see).

2) While only past participles are grammatically possible for NE verbs, present participles clearly predominate quantitatively for NSV verbs. Thus, the category of "participle tense" turns out to be very closely related to the form of the verb; cf. with a system of gerunds, in which the same tendency is manifested almost absolutely (for NSV verbs, gerunds of the past tense are on the verge of the grammatical norm, see gerund / clause 2.1. Choice of gerund suffix).

Bibliography

• Bogdanov S.I., Voeikova M.D., Evtyukhin V.B. etc. Modern Russian language. Morphology. Preprint (working materials for the textbook). St. Petersburg: Faculty of Philology and Arts, St. Petersburg State University. 2007.
• Grammar 1953 - Vinogradov V.V. (Ed.) Grammar of the Russian language, vol. 1-2. M.: AN SSSR. 1953.
• Grammar 1980 - Shvedova N.Yu. (Ed.) Russian grammar. Volume I. M.: Science. 1980.
• Dobrushina N.R. Particle semantics would and b// Kiseleva K.L., Plungyan V.A., Rakhilina E.V. (Ed.) Corpus Studies in Russian Grammar. Digest of articles. 2009, pp. 283–313.
• Zaliznyak A.A. Grammatical dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow: Russian dictionaries. 2003 (1st ed. - M. 1977).
• Zeldovich G.M. Synthetic passive of the perfect type on -sya: why is it (almost) non-existent? // Questions of linguistics, 2. 2010. P. 3–36.
• Isachenko A.V. The grammatical structure of the Russian language in comparison with Slovak. Morphology, I-II. Second edition. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture. 2003 (Reprint edition Bratislava. 1965. 1st ed.: 1954–1960).
• Knyazev Yu.P. Actionality and staticity: their relationship in Russian constructions with participles in - n, -t. Munich: Otto Sagner. 1989.
• Knyazev Yu.P. Grammatical semantics. Russian language in a typological perspective. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic cultures. 2007.
• Nedyalkov V.P., Otaina T.A. 1987. Typological and comparative aspects of the analysis of dependent taxis (based on the Nivkh language in comparison with Russian) // Bondarko A.V. (Ed.) Theory of Functional Grammar. Introduction. Aspectuality. Temporal localization. Taxis. L. 1987. S. 296–319.
• Paducheva E.V. Dynamic models in the semantics of vocabulary. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture. 2004.
• Pertsov N.V. On the inflectional status and features of the inflection of reflexive passive forms of the Russian verb // Moscow Linguistic Journal, 9(2). 2006, pp. 29–50.
• Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. - 8th ed., add. – M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture. 2001 (1st ed. - M. 1928).
• Rakhilina E.V., Kuznetsova Yu.L. Russian depictives // Acta linguistica petropolitana. In the press.
• Sazonova I.K. Russian verb and its participial forms. M.: Russian language. 1989.
• Solovyov N.V. Russian spelling. Spelling guide. St. Petersburg: Norint. 1997.
• Chvany C.V. Syntactically derived words in a lexicalist theory // Selected essays of catherine V. Chvany. Columbus: Slavica. 1996. P. 43–54.
• Schultze-Berndt E., Himmelmann N.P. 2004. Depictive secondary predicates in a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic typology, 8. 2004, pp. 59–131.
• van der Auwera J., Malchukov A. A semantic map for depictive adjectivals // Schultze-Bernd E., Himmelmann N.P. Secondary prediction and adverbial modification: the typology of depictives. Oxford. 2005. P. 393–421.

Main literature

• Bogdanov A.V. Semantics and syntax of verbal adjectives. Dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. M.: MSU. 2011.
• Vlakhov A.V. Participles of the future tense in Russian. Final qualifying work of the bachelor of philology. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University. 2010.
• Vyalsova A.P. Types of Taxis Relations in Modern Russian (Based on Participial Constructions). Abstract of diss. ... k. philol. Sciences. M. 2008.
• Godizova Z.I. Species-temporal meanings of the participle of the perfect form. Abstract of diss. ... cand. philol. Sciences. SPb. 1991.
• Grammar 1953 - Vinogradov V.V. (Ed.) Grammar of the Russian language, vol. 1‑2. M.: AN SSSR. 1953. pp. 506–521.
• Grammar 1980 - Shvedova N.Yu. (Ed.) Russian grammar. Volume I. M.: Science. 1980. pp. 665–671.
• Demyanova E.M. The relationship between the tense of the predicate and the tense of the attribute-participle with suffixes is yi-, -Yusch-, -ash-, -crate- at the morphological level // Dissertationes Slavicae. Sectio Linguistica, 22. Szeged. 1991, pp. 11–17.
• Ivannikova E.A. On the so-called adjectival process of participles // Questions of historical lexicology and lexicography of East Slavic languages. M.: Science. 1974, pp. 297–304.
• Isachenko A.V. The grammatical structure of the Russian language in comparison with Slovak. Morphology. I-II. Second edition. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture. 2003 (Reprint edition Bratislava. 1965. 1st ed.: 1954–1960).
• Kavetskaya R.K. Observations on the temporal meanings of real participles of the modern Russian language // Proceedings of the Historical and Philological Faculty of the Voronezh State University, 29. Voronezh. 1954, pp. 137–151.
• Kavetskaya R.K. Syntactic functions of constructions with real participle in modern Russian // Proceedings of the Voronezh State University, 42(3). Voronezh. 1955, pp. 83–85.
• Kalakutskaya L.P. Adjectivation of participles in the modern Russian literary language. M.: Science. 1971.
• Kalakutskaya L.P. Communion time // Russian language at school, 1. 1967. P. 62–68.
• Knyazev Yu.P. Actionality and staticity: their relationship in Russian constructions with participles ending in -н, -т. Munich: Otto Sagner. 1989.
• Kozintseva N.A. Taxis functions transmitted by participles and participial phrases in Russian // Bondarko A.V., Shubik S.A. (Ed.) Problems of functional grammar. Semantic invariance / variability. St. Petersburg: Science. 2003, pp. 175–189.
• Krapivina K.A. Participle taxis in Russian. Graduate work. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University. 2009.
• Krasnov I.A. The transition of participles into adjectives in the modern Russian literary language. Cand. diss. M. 1955.
• Lisina N.M. The real participle as a component of the semantic structure of the sentence // The sentence and its structure in the language (Russian language). M. 1986. S. 74–83.
• Lopatin V.V. Adjectivation of participles in its relation to word formation // Questions of linguistics, 5. 1966. C. 37–47.
• Lutsenko N.A. On the characterization of some personal and participial forms as members of the aspect paradigm of the verb // Uchenye zapiski Tartu University, 439. Questions of Russian Aspectology, 3. 1978a. pp. 102–110.
• Lutsenko N.A. On the study of the type and other categories of participles (notes on the state and prospects) // / Scientific notes of Tartu University, 439. Issues of Russian aspectology, 3. 1978b. pp. 89–101.
• Osenmuk L.P. On the distinction between passive past participles and homonymous verbal adjectives // Russian language at school, 2. 1977. P. 81–85.
• Paducheva E.V. On attributive contraction of subordinate predication in Russian. In: Machine Translation and Applied Linguistics, 20. M. 1980. P. 3–44.
• Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. - 8th ed., add. – M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture. 2001 (1st ed. - M. 1928). pp. 12–133.
• Plungyan V.A. Participles and pseudoparticiples in Russian: on the limits of variability. Paper delivered on February 26, 2010 (Oslo). 2010.
• Rozhkova A.Yu. Participles and gerunds as markers of the level of the speaker's speech competence (based on the sound corpus of the Russian language). Graduation work ... master of linguistics. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University. 2011.
• Rusakova M.V., Sai S.S. 2009. Competition of real participles of the past and present // Kiseleva K.L., Plungyan V.A., Rakhilina E.V. (Ed.) Corpus Studies in Russian Grammar. Digest of articles. M.: Probel-2000. 2009, pp. 245–282.
• Sazonova I.K. 1989. Russian verb and its participial forms. M.: Russian language. 1989.
• Kholodilova M.A. Competition of Subject Relativization Strategies in Russian: Corpus Study. Course work. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University. 2009.
• Kholodilova M.A. Relativization of the O-participant in the passive in Russian. Graduation qualification work of a 4th year student. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University. 2011.
• Kholodilova M. A. Competition of subject relativization strategies in Russian // Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Proceedings of the Institute for Linguistic Research RAS, 8(3). 2011, pp. 219–224.
• Kholodilova M. A. Competition of the main strategies of subject relativization in Russian // Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Proceedings of the Institute for Linguistic Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In the press.
• Chuglov V.I. Categories of voice and time in Russian participles // Questions of Linguistics, 3. 1990.
• Fowler G. Oblique passivization in Russian. The Slavic and East European Journal, 40(3). 1996. P. 519–545.

It was the pronouns that were used in the query in order to exclude the usual agreed-upon definitions that are part of the noun phrases.

In a number of Russian dialects, constructions like he left, however, they are not represented in the literary language.

This constraint actually knows an exception, cf. discussion of type examples The work was hard and time consuming.(Yandex). in [Kholodilov in print].

The ability to form short forms can also be possessed by complex adjectives, including participles as their second component, see about this (on the example of the form deeply moving) in .

As a marginal formation from these verbs, one can also mention the real participles of the past tense, which are included in the paradigm of the passive voice marked by the indicator - Xia, that is, forms like drawn, read, written. These forms are even more marginal than the corresponding present and past participles of NSV verbs. This marginality logically follows from the rarity and controversial acceptability of the reflexive passive of the verbs CB, that is, such constructions as, for example, the book will be read with great interest by both a specialist microbiologist and a young man who has not yet seen a single scientific book(on the disputable status of the latter, see, in particular, [Pertsov 2006], [Zel'dovich 2010], where the given example is also discussed). However, the corresponding participial formations are occasionally recorded in texts. As M.A. Kholodilova notes, with such formations, modifiers of the type suddenly, myself(itself, itself, itself)yourself, probably because these modifiers do not fit well with the normative passive past participles of the corresponding verbs, cf. one piece that wrote itself in the subway(an example from Yandex, cited by M. A Kholodilova) and even more dubious one piece,written by myself in the subway[Kholodilova 2011: 77].

/>

Sacrament Communions established by the Lord Himself last supper- the last meal with the disciples on Easter night before His arrest and crucifixion.

“And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and having blessed it, broke it, and giving it to the disciples, he said, Take, eat: this is my body. And taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them and said: drink all of it from it, for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26–28), “…do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). In the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of the Lord ( Eucharist - Greek. “thanksgiving”), there is a restoration of that unity between the nature of the Creator and creation, which existed before the fall; this is our return to the lost paradise. It can be said that in Communion we receive, as it were, the germs of a future life in the Kingdom of Heaven. The mystical mystery of the Eucharist is rooted in the Sacrifice of the Cross of the Savior. Crucifying His Flesh on the Cross and shedding His Blood, the God-man Jesus brought the Sacrifice of Love for us to the Creator and restored the fallen human nature. Thus, the communion of the Body and Blood of the Savior becomes our participation in this restoration. « Christ is risen from the dead, death by death correcting, and bestowing life on those in the tombs; and gave us eternal life..

The partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not a symbolic action (as Protestants believe), but quite real. Not everyone can accommodate this mystery.

« Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you will not have life in you.”

Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

For My Flesh is truly food, and My Blood is truly drink.

Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him.

As the living Father sent me, and I live by the Father, so the one who eats me will live by me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and died: he who eats this bread will live forever.

…………………………………………

Many of His disciples, hearing this, said, What strange words! who can listen to it?

…………………………………………

From that time on, many of His disciples departed from Him and no longer walked with Him” (John 6:53-58, 60, 66).

Rationalists try to "get around" the mystery by reducing mysticism to a symbol. The proud perceive what is inaccessible to their minds as an insult: Leo Tolstoy blasphemously called the sacrament "cannibalism." For others, this is a wild superstition, for someone an anachronism. But the children of the Church of Christ know that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, under the guise of bread and wine, they truly partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in Their essence. Indeed, it is not common for a person to eat raw flesh and blood, and therefore, at Communion, the Gifts of Christ are hidden under the image of bread and wine. Nevertheless, under the outer shell of corruptible matter, the imperishable substance of the Divine nature is hidden. Sometimes, by special permission, the Lord reveals this veil of mystery, and makes it possible for those who doubt to see the true nature of the Holy Gifts. In particular, in my personal practice there were two cases when the Lord wanted to let those who communicant see His Body and Blood in their true form. Both times these were first communions; in one case, psychics sent a person to the Church for their own reasons. In another, the reason for coming to the temple was a very superficial curiosity. After such a miraculous event, both became faithful children of the Orthodox Church.

How can we at least roughly understand the meaning of what is happening in the Sacrament of Communion? The nature of creation was created by the Creator to be related to Himself: not only permeable, but also, as it were, inseparable from the Creator. This is natural given the sanctity of the created nature - its initial state of free unity and submission to the Creator. In such a state are the angelic worlds. However, nature our of the world is distorted and perverted by the fall of its guardian and leader - man. Nevertheless, she did not lose the opportunity to reunite with the nature of the Creator: the clearest evidence of this is the incarnation of the Savior. But a person fell away from God voluntarily, and he can also reunite with Him only in free will (even the incarnation of Christ required the consent of a person - the Virgin Mary!). In the same time deification inanimate, free-willed nature, God can do in a natural way, arbitrarily . Thus, in the God-established Sacrament of Communion, the grace of the Holy Spirit at the established moment of worship (and also at the request of a person!) descends on the substance of bread and wine and proposes them into a substance of a different, higher nature: the Body and Blood of Christ. And now a person can accept these highest Gifts of Life only by demonstrating his free will! The Lord gives Himself to everyone, but those who believe in Him and love Him, the children of His Church, accept Him.

Thus, Communion is the gracious communion of the soul with the higher nature and in it with eternal life. Relegating this greatest mystery to the realm of an everyday image, we can compare the Communion with the "nourishment" of the soul, which it must receive after its "birth" in the Sacrament of Baptism. And just as a person is born in the flesh once into the world, and then eats until the end of his life, so Baptism is a one-time event, and we must resort to Communion regularly, preferably at least once a month, possibly more often. Communion once a year is the minimum acceptable, but such a “hungry” regimen can put the soul on the brink of survival.

How is Communion in the Church?

To participate in the Eucharist, it is necessary to properly prepare. Meeting with God is an event that shakes the soul and transforms the body. Worthy communion requires a conscious and reverent attitude to this event. There must be a sincere faith in Christ and an understanding of the meaning of the Sacrament. We must have reverence for the Sacrifice of the Savior and awareness of our unworthiness to accept this great Gift (we accept Him not as a well-deserved reward, but as a manifestation of the mercy of a loving Father). There must be pacification of the soul: you need to sincerely forgive everyone in your heart who in one way or another “saddened us” (remembering the words of the Our Father prayer: “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”) and try to reconcile with them as much as possible ; even more so for those who, for one reason or another, consider themselves offended by us. Before Communion, one should read the prayers determined by the Church and compiled by the holy fathers, which are called: “Following to Holy Communion”; these prayer texts are present, as a rule, in all editions of Orthodox prayer books (collections of prayers). It is advisable to discuss the exact amount of reading of these texts with the priest to whom you turn for advice and who knows the specifics of your life. After the celebration of the Sacrament of Communion, it is necessary to read the "Prayers of Thanksgiving for Holy Communion." Finally, preparing to receive into oneself - into one's flesh and into one's soul - the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ, terrible in their grandeur, must be cleansed in body and soul. Fasting and confession serve this purpose.

Bodily fasting involves abstaining from eating fast food. The duration of fasting before Communion is usually up to three days. Directly on the eve of Communion, one should refrain from marital relations and from midnight it is not supposed to eat any food (in fact, do not eat or drink anything in the morning before the service). However, in specific cases, significant deviations from these norms are possible; they should be discussed, again, individually.

Communion in the Church

The Sacrament of Communion itself takes place in the Church at a divine service called liturgy . As a rule, the liturgy is performed in the first half of the day; the exact time of the beginning of the services and the days of their performance should be found out directly in the temple where you are going to go. Services usually begin between seven and ten in the morning; the duration of the liturgy, depending on the nature of the service and partly on the number of communicants, is from one and a half to four to five hours. In cathedrals and monasteries, liturgies are served daily; in parish churches on Sundays and church holidays. It is advisable for those preparing for Communion to be present at the service from its beginning (for this is a single spiritual act), and also to be at the evening service the day before, which is a prayerful preparation for the Liturgy and the Eucharist.

During the liturgy, you need to stay in the church without a way out, prayerfully participating in the service until the priest leaves the altar with a cup and proclaims: “Come with the fear of God and faith.” Then the communicants line up one by one in front of the pulpit (first the children and the infirm, then the men and then the women). Hands should be folded crosswise on the chest; it is not supposed to be baptized in front of the cup. When the turn comes, you need to stand in front of the priest, give your name and open your mouth so that you can put in a liar with a particle of the Body and Blood of Christ. The liar must be carefully licked with the lips, and after the lips are wet with the board, with reverence kiss the edge of the bowl. Then, without touching the icons and without talking, you need to move away from the pulpit and take a “drink” - St. water with wine and a particle of prosphora (in this way, the oral cavity is washed, so that the smallest particles of the Gifts are not accidentally expelled from oneself, for example, when sneezing). After communion, you need to read (or listen to in the Church) prayers of thanksgiving and in the future carefully keep your soul from sins and passions.