+0
Past Participle in fact is not past because it can be not only:

"a written letter" (the action of writing is over here, i.e., is past). For Russians: "написанное".

...but also:

"a kept word" (the action of keeping may not be over at all, i.e., may be present). The "kept word" is not only the one that "has been kept" already, but also the one that "is being kept", or "has been being kept". For Russians: "сдерживаемое" (а не только "сдержанное").

So, the Participle should have rather been called Passive, not Past, since it describes Voice, not Time, and can be both past and present.
1 2 3 4
Comments  
Hello. In your very examples participle acts more of an adjective, namely verbal adjective. That's why "a written letter" still does have something to do with present ("written" is just an attribute).
FandorinHello. In your very examples participle acts more of an adjective, namely verbal adjective. That's why "a written letter" still does have something to do with present ("written" is just an attribute).
Hello. That's what the "past" participle is supposed to do - to act either as a verbal adjective, or as a part of compound predicatives in present tenses, or as a part of any Passive Voice form (where it's actually again a verbal adjective).

It's not just something that "a written letter" has to do with present. It actually IS present in contexts like "the letter is being written" or "the letter has been being written".
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
FandorinHello. In your very examples participle acts more of an adjective, namely verbal adjective. That's why "a written letter" still does have something to do with present ("written" is just an attribute).
To prevent you from saying that I confuse participle and "the third form", I do not. They are the same thing. Participle is not "причастие", no matter what the dictionary says. It may be one, but it may not. "Past" Participle is a verb's form formed with the help of "-ed" ending. Period.
Well, that is all well known.
rinoceronte in contexts like "the letter is being written" or "the letter has been being written".
First of all, it's a phrase not a sentence to talk about any actions since it doesn't say anything about the process.
"Сдержанное" can mean that the word is still being kept (if you haven't recanted of your word, we can say it is still "alive", isn't it?). "Сдерживаемое" is not a good translation in my opinion. You can harness that translation while describing "aggression" or "resistance"or referring to suppressed feelings, not "word". Anyway Russian language is flexible enough to tolerate anything. Emotion: smile
rinoceronteTo prevent you from saying that I confuse participle and "the third form", I do not.
No doubt about that.
rinoceronteParticiple is not "причастие", no matter what the dictionary says.

A participle is "причастие" indeed. But as tricky as this might be the point is that "past participle" might be not a very suitble name since it can be used to talk about past, present and future. I will go along on this one as you stated at the top.
FandorinWell, that is all well known.
!?!?!?! What's well-known? That Past Participle is not Past Participle, but Passive Participle? Who is it well-known by?
FandorinFirst of all, it's a phrase not a sentence to talk about any actions since it doesn't say anything about the process
Ok, I will make it simpler. A quote of yours again:
FandorinWell, that is all well known.
"Known" is a past participle here, but there is no chance for you neither interpret it in English, nor translate into Russian as a past action. It's present. The process of "well-knowing" is under way.
Fandorin"Сдержанное" can mean that the word is still being kept (if you haven't recanted of your word, we can say it is still "alive", isn't it?). "Сдерживаемое" is not a good translation in my opinion
No. "Сдержанное" can't mean that the word is still being kept. It means that there is no need in keeping it anymore. The action of keeping is over. For situations like "the word is still being kept" we use exactly "сдерживаемое": Слово, которое он дал и продолжает сдерживать - это сдерживаемое слово, а не сдержанное.

If you are not comfortable with that example, try this one:

"A clearly seen horizon". You can't attribute "seen" to past. It's present. And you will translate it into Russian with Present Passive Verbal Adjective: "видимый", but not "увиденный".
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
rinoceronte
FandorinWell, that is all well known.
!?!?!?! What's well-known? That Past Participle is not Past Participle, but Passive Participle? Who is it well-known by?
It is just you who is trying to invent some terms, not me. If it helps you understand English better- it is your choice. Gobbledygook is not my cup of tea.
rinoceronte"Known" is a past participle here, but there is no chance for you neither interpret it in English, nor translate into Russian as a past action.
I was not going to. I just don't understand what you're arguing about - Shall we accept your new term? Read the theory.
rinoceronteNo. "Сдержанное" can't mean that the word is still being kept. It means that there is no need in keeping it anymore. The action of keeping is over. For situations like "the word is still being kept" we use exactly "сдерживаемое": Слово, которое он дал и продолжает сдерживать - это сдерживаемое слово, а не сдержанное.
I don't like this adjective it doesn't sound and I will stick to my guns anyway. And by the way we were talking about the phrase "a kept word" which I also find rather awkward even in English. Let's wait for native speakers to hear what they think.
rinoceronte"A clearly seen horizon". You can't attribute "seen" to past. It's present. And you will translate it into Russian with Present Passive Verbal Adjective: "видимый", but not "увиденный".
For starters, you don't know how I will translate it.
rinocerontewe use exactly "сдерживаемое":
You use, not we. I would never utter such a thing in Russian. I think this participle should be translated as additional sentence called "определительное придаточное предложение".
____
Here two examples

Stones thrown into the water go to the bottom.
Stones thrown by the boy reached the opposite bank.

How would you translate these?
Apart everything the only thing I can't agree at all upon is the word "сдерживаемое". That's all.
Fandorin
rinoceronte
FandorinWell, that is all well known.
!?!?!?! What's well-known? That Past Participle is not Past Participle, but Passive Participle? Who is it well-known by?
It is just you who is trying to invent some terms, not me. If it helps you understand English better- it is your choice. Gobbledygook is not my cup of tea
I don't understand what you are saying. I never suggested anything to be your cup of tea. Save my time, if you would.
FandorinRead the theory
Please, find somebody else to talk to in imperative mood.
FandorinI don't like this adjective it doesn't sound and I will stick to my guns anyway.
Russian grammar is strict. Every verb can have four verbal adjective forms: действительное причастие настоящего времени (сдерживающий), действительное причастие прошедшего времени (сжерживавший), страдательное причастие настоящего времени (сдерживаемый), страдательное причастие прошедшего времени (сдержанный). All that with not a slighest regard whether it "sounds" for you or not.
FandorinI don't like this adjective it doesn't sound and I will stick to my guns anyway.
FandorinHere two examples. Stones thrown into the water go to the bottom.Stones thrown by the boy reached the opposite bank.How would you translate these?
The first one either "Камни, брошенные в воду, идут на дно", or "Камни, бросаемые в воду, идут на дно". The second one either: "Камни, брошенные мальчиком, достигли другого берега", or "Камни, бросаемые мальчиком, достигали другого берега".

Now do me a favor, please, aim your curiosity at any other of huge variety of threads on this forum. Thank you cordially in advance.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more