страдательные причастия прошедшего времени (Very Difficult Question)

If there is an answer give it if not just ingnore the post.

My question is regarding страдательные причастия прошедшего времени. For example of the verb прочитать the причастиe is прочитанный

My limited understanding enables me to understand the following things:
1. The 85% of Russians when they are asked about what part of the speech is прочитанный they will answer adjective.
2. The страдательные причастия прошедшего времени are used as adjectives.
3. They have a краткая форма which is most of the times used.
4. In most of the cases they proceed the noun and this is mainly the reason why so many people believe that they are adjectives.
5. The majority of verbs do not have a страдательные причастия прошедшего времени

Some structural issues:
1. Страдательные причастия прошедшего времени are composed from verbs. In order to be formed the following endings are used:
-енный
-атый
-ённый
-анный
2. In some cases the ударение is transfered (increased)

Question: Is there a rule what ending to use when we form them (-енный -атый -ённый -анный )?

Possible answer: Don't bother! You should have to memorize all them. Most of the times when the verb ends in -ать and its First Conjugation Verb you use the ending -анный. In all other cases is just lottery. :puzzled:

Your knowledge:
1 - maybe
2 - yes. Any причастия.
3 - They have a краткая форма - yes
which is most of the times used.
- ??? Краткая форма is preferrable when and only when the participle is used as a predicate. The same rule as for adjectives.
4 - they have exactly the same syntax functions as adjectives. There are some spelling differences though, like no double "н" in adjectives.
5 - Transitive verbs (those, which have direct object) and only they have passive participles.

Structural and question:See here. Additionally:
1. Participles formed with -т- suffix are exceptions and to be memorized IMO. They are not so much, I believe.
2. Yes, sometimes stress is moved to suffix then е is turned to ё. When it is moved and when is not sometimes is a problem even for native speakers. Sometimes both ways are acceptable.

Look, human languages is not a mathematics. I believe you can easily find many illogical phenomena in Greek as well if care to search.

This what I called an immediate response. Thanks it-ogo.
Excellent helping material.

Some issues

Quote:

---

Краткая форма is preferrable when and only when the participle is used as a predicate. The same rule as for adjectives.

---

This rule I don't know it even for adjectives.
What is a predicative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

This rule I don't know it even for adjectives.
What is a predicative?

---

Predicate is Сказуемое. :) Roles of words in a sentence are: subject, predicate, object, attributive etc.

Well, normally predicate is a second most important member of a sentence or a clause. Usually it is a verb.

"I go home." I - subject, go - predicate.

Participle:

Я убит. I am killed. Убит is a predicate therefore it is in a short form.
Убитый человек лежал на земле. Here predicate is лежал. Убитый is an attributive of человек and it is in a long form.

Adjective

Виноград зелен. The grape is green. Short form.
Я не люблю зеленый виноград. I don't like green grape. Long form

Both short and long forms can be used when an adjective or a participle is the predicate:
«Он убит» = «Он убитый», «Он зелен» = «Он зелёный».
But adjectives tend to the long form, while passive participles tend to the short one.
«Он убит» is used much more often than «он убитый», but «он зелен» is used much more rarely than «он зелёный».

When an adjective or a participle is not a predicate, the short form is never used.

Quote:

---

I believe you can easily find many illogical phenomena in Greek as well if care to search.

---

In Greeks about the 30% of linguistics issues cannot be explained (i.e. you have just one letter sound like и we have five: ι, υ, ει, οι, η). However the 100% can be explained if you have knowledge of ancient Greeks. Greek language is the only one that the mathematical system of numbers, the musical system of notes and linguistic system of letters are united (I don't bother to explain). What matters that even the most insignificant detail has a specific rule explaining it (the only language in the word that has this privilege). Unfortunately very few people possess this knowledge usually those who studied ancient Greeks (in there majority Greeks, Cypriots, Germans and English). I don't encourage anyone to learn Greek ... if I had a choice I would have never learned Greek :wink:

P.S. Advice from a moderate Greek: Never insult the Greek language or history in front of a Greek or a Cypriot ... you have a big probability to be insulted back. This is just a cultural knowledge in case ...

Honestly, I've never found much use to studying all these rules regarding the different причастия. I learned how to use them just by reading a lot of Russian, learning different songs, and listening to people speaking. I once got a job tutoring Russian and that was probably the first time I ever actually sat down and studied the rules, but I used all these different forms every day in my speaking. Okay, I sometimes get confused about the difference between предъявляемый and предъявленный, but that's just me.

I think it makes a lot of sense to learn fixed expressions using these forms - the first one that comes to mind is считанные секунды, but there are many others. Once you know enough of these expressions you should be able to form new sentences based on the models you already know. For example, from считанные секунды, it's easy to come up with прочитанные книги or even протраченные деньги without even thinking about the rule behind it.

At least that's my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John_Douglas

Honestly, I've never found much use to studying all these rules regarding the different причастия. I learned how to use them just by reading a lot of Russian, learning different songs, and listening to people speaking.

---

Thanks for sharing this. Always wanted to find someone using a listen-fisrt approach in learning russian.
I know it works just fine for English. But i was wondering if it provides the same result with russian having all theese multiforms of words. And it sounds great.

I don't want to make myself look silly saying I've never learned grammar rules cos I'm not sure if there are many of them in the english language :) but i do want to say that I'm not going to. We analyze grammar for 10 years in school and yet we end up with no language skills at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

(i.e. you have just one letter sound like и we have five: ι, υ, ει, οι, η).

---

No, we also have many letters pronounced like [и] in unstressed syllables:
лиса [л’иса́]
леса [л’иса́]
плясать [пл’иса́т’]
часы [ч’исы́]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

However the 100% can be explained if you have knowledge of ancient Greeks. Greek language is the only one that the mathematical system of numbers, the musical system of notes and linguistic system of letters are united (I don't bother to explain). What matters that even the most insignificant detail has a specific rule explaining it (the only language in the word that has this privilege).

---

Unfortunately, I don’t speak Ancient Greek. So I can’t be sure, but your phrase sounds like some kind of misconception.
Yes, every natural language has many ‘illogical’ things that appear to be perfectly logical when you learn the history of the language. But Ancient Greek was a natural language too. As a natural language, it also had many ‘illogical’ things that appeared to be logical when you learned its history — Ancient-ancient Greek or Proto-Indo-European, and so on.

As for using the same symbols for writing words, numbers, and musical notes, this seems to have no relation to the language itself.

If you mean the orthography only, then yes, Ancient Greek has a phonetic orthography with a strict correspondence between the letters and the phonemes. That’s not because of the uniqueness of the language or anything like that. That’s because the phonology of the language had not yet changed significantly since the time when the writing system had appeared. A language with a short writing tradition usually has less complex spelling rules than a typical language with a long-standing writing tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

In Greeks about the 30% of linguistics issues cannot be explained (i.e. you have just one letter sound like и we have five: ι, υ, ει, οι, η). However the 100% can be explained if you have knowledge of ancient Greeks.

---

Historical spelling-pronunciation mismatch is a must for any more or less phonetic alphabet. Obviously Greek should be a leader. Internal contradictions in spoken grammar is a different matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

Greek language is the only one that the mathematical system of numbers, the musical system of notes and linguistic system of letters are united (I don't bother to explain).

---

Hmm... AFAIK system of letter number standards exists for all major alphabets and even for many different languages separately. In Russian such system exists as well, probably brought from the Byzantium along with the very alphabet. But such systems are nowadays almost completely out of use (except Roman one, which is still very limited) and most people are unaware about them. You want to say that Greeks actually widely use alphabetical numbers now? Even in phone numbers? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

P.S. Advice from a moderate Greek: Never insult the Greek language or history in front of a Greek or a Cypriot ... you have a big probability to be insulted back. This is just a cultural knowledge in case ...

---

You think it can be taken as an insult? Most Russians actually proud of the illogicality and complication of their language even if sometimes hypocritically complain of that to the foreigners... So be sure that you pleased all native speakers by your complains. :D

Unfortunately I am the most incompetent to speak about this issue but I am very proud that you know so many things regarding linguistics (it-ogo, soft sign). For this reason I trust my learning of russian on you. One of my best friend he is a professor of linguistics in the university of Harvard and unfortunately I am forced to be exposed on this type of dialogue in the last 10 years of my life. There are many books explaining the structure of languages. Explaining 100% I suppose it includes only structural and grammatical things. But not sounds.

By the way I did a mistake the letters sound like "i" in Greek are not 5 but 35. We forget that there are 7 different types of stress in Ancient Greek that change not only the pronunciation but the "reason of existence" in that particular part of the word ... Now you understand why I don't want to enter this unproductive dialogue.

I cannot explain the three-dimensional-nature of the Greek language but allow me to present you one example: When I was in Athens in 2007 in one famous amphitheater, called Irodeion, professors from all over the word came to listen ancient Greek music. Instead of notes the partitura was a text, particularly a poem about the love of Zeus with Europe from the Greek mythology. The music was absolutely harmonic (i.e. it was a scale, if I remember well something similar to G minor). The most exciting part however was that at the end a professor of Mathematics from the university of Patra presented that in the same text if it was translated to numbers it included mathematical rules such as: (a+b)^2= a^2+2**b+ b^2. The rules if I remember well were about 50 and included Euclidean geometry, integrals etc. The exciting thing is that this logic was repeated for ancient Greek texts for the period of 500 BC - 400 BC.

P.S.1 As an economist I thing that we Greeks are the worst nation regarding Economic Policy not on planet Earth but on universe. :bad:
P.S.2 I don't claim that my opinion is either correct ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

allow me to present you one example: When I was in Athens in 2007 in one famous amphitheater, called Irodeion, professors from all over the word came to listen ancient Greek music. Instead of notes the partitura was a text, particularly a poem about the love of Zeus with Europe from the Greek mythology. The music was absolutely harmonic (i.e. it was a scale, if I remember well something similar to G minor). The most exciting part however was that at the end a professor of Mathematics from the university of Patra presented that in the same text if it was translated to numbers it included mathematical rules such as: (a+b)^2= a^2+2**b+ b^2. The rules if I remember well were about 50 and included Euclidean geometry, integrals etc. The exciting thing is that this logic was repeated for ancient Greek texts for the period of 500 BC - 400 BC.

---

I don’t believe texts in Ancient Greek are simultaneously music and sets of mathematical statements. This sounds like a nonsense.
Probably, it was a trick commonly used to impress the public — one can make music out of a random sequence of values (e.g. music of number π).

This resembles the Russian folk tale «Каша из топора» (Axe porridge). A soldier sought lodging for the night. An old pair let him stay at their house. The soldier had no food with him, but the hosts were stingy and refused to feed him. Then the soldier claimed that he can make a dinner for them all out of his axe. He called the dish axe porridge. He put the axe into a kettle. Then he asked hosts for some water and salt. Then he asked for some serials. Finally, when the serials were ready, he asked for some butter and bread. The hosts liked the axe porridge very much, thanked the soldier and believed the dinner felt to their lot for free (because the axe — the ‘main’ ingredient — was soldier’s).
In fact, all the edible ingredients belonged to the hosts, and the axe played no role in the dish (and it didn’t damage, the soldier took it back). It was the soldier who had a dinner for free.

The same is true for the π-music and many similar things. The number π (or the poem text) plays the role of the axe, while the harmony is added by the performers.

As for mathematical formulas encoded in the text, I suppose, it’s a kind of mathematical trick. For example, there exists so called ‘one-time pad encryption’ when an arbitrary sequence of symbols can be interpreted in an arbitrary way. Using such tricks some ‘professors’ claim they decrypted the Bible and found the killer of Kennedy there etc.

The scientific definition of your answer is: data mining (i.e. looking for patents in a big set of data). Nevertheless, in the university of Harvard, in the postgraduate deparment of Classic, has a module called the "Mathematical aspect of Ancient Greeks". Nonsense and Harvard cannot be used in the same sentence (or they can? Personally I am an anti-scientist and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of fakeness). I told you from the beginning I don't want to enter this non-productive dialogue ...

Those can be interesting games of mind. But first and foremost language is the way common people speak to each other rather than anything else. And I believe that it is enough for a language to be a miracle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

I am an anti-scientist

---

What does it mean?

Quote:

---

What does it mean?

---

I don't believe in the existence of solid scientific rules in social sciences (including anthropology, linguistics). I don't believe that social phenomenon could be explained or understood. But I believe in the prevailance of the dominant paradigm.
The reason why I left my PhD in Finance in the third year is that I became an anti-scientist or more specific a relativist.

Being a biologist and a true follower of evolution theory I think that all social things are just the means of human adaptive changes, just as language itself. It is another strategy from those used by other living beings: instead of adapting to new climat, food etc. we chose to adjust our adaptivness to excellence, having a highly organized society with the means of communication, division of labour etc. For example, for aphis it is necessary to evolve to new species just to start eating another plant, but we, people, can try new food everyday and our means of cooking can convert even most poisonous foods to edible meals.
I do not know about "scienceness" of sociology, psychology and such, but linguistics and anthropology are totally science for me.
I'm sorry for my not very clear explanations, but my English somewhat restrains me from good scientific language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

I don't believe in the existence of solid scientific rules in social sciences (including anthropology, linguistics). I don't believe that social phenomenon could be explained or understood. But I believe in the prevailance of the dominant paradigm.
The reason why I left my PhD in Finance in the third year is that I became an anti-scientist or more specific a relativist.

---

We, who deal with natural or technical sciences professionally, often feel a kind of snobbery about humanitarian and social disciplines. According to our methodological icon Karl Popper, they can not use Scientific Method consistently because due to the nature of their objects, their statements actually can not satisfy Falsifiability criterion (and thus can't be really "scientific").

But among the humanitarian disciplines the Comparative linguistics is one the most respectable in the opinion of many "naturalists" and "techs". Its methodological apparatus is quite solid and exact, and the results are least questionable.

Quote:

---

We, who deal with natural or technical sciences professionally, often feel a kind of snobbery about humanitarian and social disciplines. According to our methodological icon Karl Popper, they can not use Scientific Method consistently because due to the nature of their objects, their statements actually can not satisfy Falsifiability criterion (and thus can't be really "scientific")

---

Some terminology I haven't came across for some years. Just allow me to add an additional opinion, that does not neccesarilly disagree or agree with those mentioned above.
Ludwig Wittgenstein* and his theory of social games are in my opinion the most descriptive, or if you want the dominant paradigm, in Comparative linguistics.
"Ancient Greek can be compared to the lingusitic game with the most comprehend and accurate rules, which cannot be explained based on the current experimental methodolgy due to the lack of context or even understanding of that particual time being ...", "the philosophical theocracy of that time required the structure of a linguistic vehicle so complicated that lead the deliberate alternation of the intrinsic character of the language to a tool of propagandation of mere intelligence so as to exterminate the slighest margin of randomness**, which at that time of naturalism and humanitarism, was considered more or less a disease" - Philosophical Investigation, 1953***

* Perhaps the most influential philosopher of social sciences of the 20th century
** The underlying was done by Wittgenstein on his original book
***Translated from the Greek Version of 1998

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soft sign

This resembles the Russian folk tale «Каша из топора» (Axe porridge).

---

Thanks for sharing that! In English, and in several other languages, this story is usually called Суп из камня, "Stone Soup," or less often Суп из гвоздя, "Nail soup." In the versions I'm familiar with, many people from the village add just a little bit to the soldier's soup: one gives a carrot, another an onion, another puts in a handful of dried beans, someone offers a beet, an old woman pours in a cup of rice, etc. So the soldier gets a free dinner, but everyone else gets an ALMOST free dinner!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

"Ancient Greek can be compared to the lingusitic game with the most comprehend and accurate rules, which cannot be explained based on the current experimental methodolgy due to the lack of context or even understanding of that particual time being ...", "the philosophical theocracy of that time required the structure of a linguistic vehicle so complicated that lead the deliberate alternation of the intrinsic character of the language to a tool of propagandation of mere intelligence so as to exterminate the slighest margin of randomness**, which at that time of naturalism and humanitarism, was considered more or less a disease" - Philosophical Investigation, 1953***

---

So basically he thinks that Ancient Greek was a construct of philosopers rather than natural language. And the first people's common Greek was Koine after Alexander?

Quote:

---

So basically he thinks that Ancient Greek was a construct of philosopers rather than natural language. And the first people's common Greek was Koine after Alexander?

---

I don't know and unfortunately we cannot ask him :puzzled:
Koine Greek? Very few Greeks know what even this mean :instruct: I am impressed it-ogo! Honestly impressed!
it-ogo I think you should start studying less and come to Cyprus and help me with these thousand Russian millionaires who don't know how and where to spend their money :evil:
And when we make a lot of money... we can sponsor the research on Comparative Linguistics :wink2:

Money avoid me. Probably because I don't show enough passion for them. :D

I was playing now a rally video game on the mobile phone and it says: "Chase the hunted car".
The word hunt in russian is охотиться . As I know this type of verbs (i.e. непереходный with ending -ся) don't have страдательное причастие прошедшего времени.
So in this case I must conclude that there is an adjective describing the word "hunted".
How I must translated this expression?

Вероятно, подойдут причастия выслеживаемая, преследуемая, разыскиваемая, либо сложноподчинённое определение "на которую объявлена охота". Затрудняюсь сказать, как перевести фразу в целом.

The best solution (in my opinion) would be "Преследуйте разыскиваемую машину".

Chase him! = Преследуй(те) его!
"Разыскиваемый" implies something like "wanted" here.

http://goldblogger.de/wp-content/upl...ed_sample3.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

Some structural issues:
1. Страдательные причастия прошедшего времени are composed from verbs. In order to be formed the following endings are used:
-енный
-атый
-ённый
-анный
2. In some cases the ударение is transfered (increased)

Question: Is there a rule what ending to use when we form them (-енный -атый -ённый -анный )?

---

Possible answered to my question:
1. As I already mentioned: when the verb ends in -ать and its First Conjugation Verb you use the ending -анный
2. When the прошедшее время глагола оканчивается in any other form different that -ал then the most probable окончание is -eнный (e.g. построить > построил > построенный )
3. When the прошедшее время глагола оканчивается in - ыл then the most possible ending is -тый (закрыть > закрыл > закрытый)
4. Still now answer when to use -ённый

Prichastiya in Russian are a real mess.

убить - убитый
одеть - одетый
выжать - выжатый
зачать - зачатый

I don't see the rule to distinguish between -тый and -нный.

:dunno:

Казнить - казнил - казнённый (executed)
Закрепить - закрепил - закреплённый (fixed)
Лишать - лишил - лишённый (deprived)
Удивлять - удивил - удивлённый (surprised)
Изумить - изумил - изумлённый (amazed)
Поразить - поразил - поражённый
Сразить - сразил - сражённый
Заклеймить - заклеймил - заклеймённый

Расстрелять - расстрелял - расстрелянный (shot)
Забыть - забыл - забытый (forgotten)
Побить - побил - побитый (beaten)

I would like to ask something about the use of the страдательные причастия прошедшего времени, by presenting the following example:
1. Музей, построенный архитектором Антоном , самое красивое здание нашего города.
2. Музей, который был построен архитектором Антоном , самое красивое здание нашего города.

In my ears they sound totally the same. But are they in reallity?

Also I noticed that when a страдательные причастия прошедшего времени is expressed on a future or a past tense then we usuaully use the краткую форму.
For example is difficult for me to imagine where I will use the expression:
1. Музей, который был построенный (-ым) архитектором Антоном ...
2. Музей, который будет построенный(-ым) архитектором Антоном ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

1. Музей, построенный архитектором Антоном , самое красивое здание нашего города.
2. Музей, который был построен архитектором Антоном , самое красивое здание нашего города.

In my ears they sound totally the same. But are they in reallity?

---

Yes, they are.

Quote:

---

1. Музей, который был построенный (-ым) архитектором Антоном ...
2. Музей, который будет построенный(-ым) архитектором Антоном ...

---

Yes, you're right.

Построенный - > построен (one "н")
Сделанный -> сделан

Эти часы были сделаны под заказ. (сделать -> сделанные -> сделаны)
Ваш заказ будет готов завтра. (готовить -> готовый -> готов)