Does the participle have a future tense? Future

E.G.Shymchuk,

Candidate of Philology,

Associate Professor of the Russian Language Department

Faculty of Philology

Moscow State University named after M.V.Lomonosova

At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, changes were discovered in the verbal system of the Russian language that indicate the activation of previously occasionally observed active participles of the future tense such as reading, coming, illuminating, hearing. Let us recall that participles in the Russian grammatical system have three forms: present and past imperfective (reader, read) and past perfect (read). However, since the beginning of the 21st century. the question of whether in the Russian literary language the ban on the use of forms that were previously occasionally formed from perfective verbs with the help of suffixes -ush-/-yush- and -ash-/-yash- will be lifted, has been repeatedly discussed in special works (see. especially , ), as well as at linguistic conferences and on the Internet. I will quote the recent words of the famous philologist D.P.Bak: “I don’t understand why you can’t say a flying ball. This grammatical cell exists in the Russian language.”

Nowadays, in online publications of any type and on websites of various topics, real participles of the perfect form of the future tense, such as wishing, bringing, doing, hearing, seeing, are increasingly found. Without touching on the question of the non-normativity of these forms for now, let us consider their meaning. They are noted, as a rule, in sentences with a verbal predicate, expressing relations of consequence and preserving their own semantics of the future. Here are some examples. In a sentence: a person speaking Belarusian will be considered a “black sheep” (www.liveinternet.ru/users/kladovka/.../page2.html) (This and the following examples from the Internet were checked in August 2014 - January 2015. Spelling and punctuation are left unchanged. Certification is based on the documents contained in the relevant sources) - the participle has the meaning of a previous action in relation to a future situation, which in this context is described by the corresponding form of the conjugated verb (he will speak, and then he will be considered a black sheep). Note that here it is permissible to replace the participle of the future tense with the form of the past: the person who spoke... will be considered.... However, there is a difference between these two uses: the past participle describes the past, correlating it with any plane of time, while the future participle in a similar context cannot correlate what is being described with the present or the past, cf.: ... the one who spoke ... will be considered / considered / considered ... and... the speaker... will be considered/*considered/*considered.... The future participle can also express following in relation to a future action: I’ll give you the idea of ​​a project, simple, but perhaps even bringing you money (530.ru/wwwboards/mkontrol/2445/messages/828806.shtml). Here, replacing the participle with the past participle is impossible. In the following example: people who have never read and will never read the book already have their own opinion, and not at all about the author (www/respublika-kaz.biz/news/tribune/1858/) - the highlighted participle also relates the situation described to the plan hypothetical future, correlating it with the plan of the present. The presence of comparison (those who have not read and those who will not read) makes replacing the future participle with another tense form impossible. In a sentence: you came to our website in search of specialists who will make an elite foundation for you (stroytaun.ru/foundation-slab) - where the participle we are interested in describes a potential future situation, replacing the participle with another tense form is also excluded. (Of course, the place of a construction with a future participle can be taken by a synonymous subordinate clause with the future tense form of the conjugated verb, cf.: specialists who will make the foundation > specialists who will make the foundation).

Participles in -shy can also denote a potential feature correlated with the future tense: I’m not even talking about the orphaned crowds (≈crowds that will become orphaned) of the primitive... electorate, which in the 21st century will not be able to feed itself on its own (echo.msk. ru.29.02.2012); I really didn’t think that in our time there would be someone who would be able (≈who will be able) not only to understand, but also to convey the mood of the classic (fan-fantasy.com).

The scope of the article does not allow increasing the number of examples (for more information on the meaning of future participles, see), but the illustrations given show that future participles have their own grammatical zone. However, the communicative need for their use is not acute: the meanings corresponding to them, as a rule, can be expressed by other means.

Insufficient “refinement” of the new form leads to errors in its use. Wed. with the given examples is as follows: This is one of the very few albums of intellectual rock music that saw the light in 2014 (instead of seeing the light, because we are talking about an album that has already been published - E.Sh.) (http://kirdos- master.livejournal.com/). It is known that similar errors are possible when using participles permitted by the norm.

Before trying to assess the perspective opening up to the activating form, let us recall that individual participles with the meaning of the future tense have been noted in Russian monuments since ancient times. They were treated as exceptions in historical grammars. In the XVIII and XIX-XX centuries. they, while remaining peripheral, were possible in the Church Slavonic language and in the book style of the Russian literary language: this is evidenced, in particular, even by the data of the National Corpus of the Russian Language, in which we were able to find 3 forms of interest to us - desiring, coming and experiencing, all - in philosophical or religious-philosophical texts of the late 18th - early 20th centuries. Wed: Anyone who does not want to fulfill what is prescribed to him by civil laws can apologize (P.S. Baturin. Study of the book “On Errors and Truth.” 1790); In her arms she (the Mother of God) carries a formidable baby, who will one day come to judge the world, and she knows the minute of this phenomenon (P.V. Annenkov. Travel notes. 1842-1843). Blessed are those who experience his vision, they will seek him with all their hearts (S.N. Bulgakov. Non-evening light. 1916). Isolated contexts with such participles are also noted in the language of fiction of this era, but the authors of grammars speak of them as violations of the norm. In the 20th century The authors of and give a similar assessment to the future participles: pointing out that examples of their uses are few, the creators of academic descriptions of the Russian language system characterize the future participles as non-normative.

The removal of participles of the type singing, thinking, trying from the range of permitted ones remains an unshakable requirement of normative aids today. In “Practical Stylistics of the Modern Russian Language,” for example, we find the following formulation: “Replacing a subordinate clause with a participial phrase [in a complex type A singer who sings a difficult part will be accepted into the theater troupe - E.Sh.] is impossible, because in modern In the Russian language, forms of participles in -shiy (with the meaning of the future tense) are not formed. Thus, the norm remains valid. It should still be noted that in the newest online publication they are called (for the first time!) “not entirely normative” [op. cit., p. 1 of the section “Real participles of the present tense”].

However, there was also a demand to “legalize” future participles (see, for example,) - taking into account the fact that they are organic to the Russian language and the number of their uses is growing rapidly. Is there any basis for this at present? The check shows that now on the Internet, as at the very beginning of the 21st century, there are still numerous contexts with only a fairly narrow range of participles known to researchers of the previous decade - such as willing (29,600), able (20,500), doer (6,500), seer (2350); some other participles do not lag behind them or come close to them - such as interested (11000), opener (7650), bringing (3000), losing (2800), coming (2100), writing (1,500), replacing (1460) , helping (838), testing (580). Taking into account all forms for each education gives even more impressive figures. However, without denying, for example, that the number of uses of different forms of individual participles turns out to be very significant (for example, among those who are able to, it exceeds 80,000), we must not forget that the total number of documents indexed by one of the search engines (Google) currently exceeds 60 trillion, so in this space the share of our participles turns out to be vanishingly small.

The “share” of the most frequent participles of the future tense can still be assessed using figures expressing the percentage ratio of the shares of use of normative and non-normative participles (they are based on Internet data).

In Table I, the first column shows the total number of occurrences of the following five participial forms of prefixed verbs and their non-prefixed correlates:

1.perfect form of the future tense (willing, able, coming, doing, interested),

2. perfect form of the past tense (wanted, managed, came, did, became interested),

3. imperfect form of the present tense (willing, able, going, doing, interested),

4. imperfect past tense (wanted, could, walked, did, was interested),

and in the second - the percentage of the total number of occurrences corresponding to each group:

Total in % %1

1. owl bud. 59,000 ≈ 0.005

2. owls past 4,109,000 ≈ 40

3. nesov. present 4,617,000 ≈ 45

4. unsatisfactory past 1,444,000 ≈ 15

As the table data clearly demonstrates, future participles in the modern Internet generally retain their marginal character. This conclusion does not contradict the observation that the appearance of individual participial formations becomes regular.

First of all, the participles of the future tense of derivatives of prefixed verbs such as desiring, playing, trampling, preparing, associated in the language system with paired or correlative in appearance, are distinguished by regularity, cf.: desiring - wishing, playing - playing, trampling - trampling, preparing - preparing and so on. Dozens of pairs of such units have been discovered. Prefix members of such pairs can be represented either by a significant number of uses or by single occurrences. We emphasize that it is the future participles of prefixed perfective verbs that are usually assessed by native speakers of the Russian language as acceptable. The possibility of the appearance of some dissonant combinations of sounds, for example, a confluence of hissing sounds or a cluster of labialized vowel sounds, has a certain restraining role - this probably explains the low frequency of forms such as constricting, decoupling.

You can also predict the likelihood or difficulty of forming a future participle based on the type of its verbal meaning. Their formation is predictable in verbs with the meaning of an instant action (see, hear) or its complete and final completion (do, write). On the contrary, verbs that express meaning relative to a specific time period (to remain silent, to work, to shout) are not inclined to form future participles.

The last limitation can be explained by the fact that specific semantics is incompatible with the meaning of a future and rather hypothetical (therefore vague, vague) attribute. In general, future participles are still unproductive today: they are significantly inferior in this regard even to passive present participles, which are regularly formed only from certain types of verbs. Therefore, it is not yet possible to answer the question of when future participles will enter the literary language.

An analysis of the functional-stylistic distribution of future participles leads to the same conclusion (The proposed characterization of the functional distribution of future participles on the Russian Internet is partially based on, see op. cit., pp. 30-35). They are common in the following types of Internet texts: (a) fiction, (b) journalistic, (c) texts reflecting non-standardized written speech, which can be close to spoken language.

It can be noted that in texts of the first type, future participles are possible, while in prose they are noted more often. Let's give a typical example from modern prose: And if suddenly a worthy person appears on your horizon and proposes marriage to you, you should know that you are free from all conventions (I. Gribkova. “Circle of Love”).

In literary (or pretending to be) texts, participles sometimes represent a deliberate departure from the norm or an element of language play - as in the anonymous poems quoted in: I am just living in secluded / And someday I will surely die, / But having hope for eternity , / In turn, he is able to rise again.

In online journalism, that is, works on a variety of current social topics, contexts with future participles are not uncommon: There are many mines that are about to close in this region (TV, Itogi, 02/04/1996); Garmash is a kind, cheerful person, a true friend, who will not spare his friend’s last shirt or sleepless night (EM, 02/16/2003, Ks. Larina); “MIG” joins in advance the numerous wishes expressed on such a serious occasion to the employees of KRU (mig.com.ua); Before the dismissal of Sergei Oborin from Amkar, hardly anyone imagined that Rashid Rakhimov, who would take his place, would be able to pull the team out of the basement of the standings (chapionat.ru/football/2006/12/01/article-7582.html). The use of participial forms in journalistic texts indicates a fairly free attitude of their authors to the literary norm.

There is virtually no regulatory control in private, informal Internet communication. A liberal attitude towards language norms creates conditions for the consolidation of new forms. The noticeable increase in the frequency of future participles in the new speech sphere may provide some grounds for the assumption that these forms are closer to the literary norm. It’s interesting, in particular, that even understanding the unusualness of the participial form, the author can preserve it: It’s good that there are older ... comrades who won’t let (wow, he turned it around, right?) completely goof up (http://forum.buhgalteria.ru/lofiversion/index .php/t2265.html) (example from). A conscious choice of future participles is also noted, for example, when expressing opposition: Everything that interests me and may interest you (rebenok 89.livejournal.com); here lie billions of goods that are instantly lost and will lose all demand (Howl at the cold silver of the moon. Livejournal 26.11.2011).

Of course, it is necessary to continue monitoring the functioning of future participles in modern Russian.

Literature

1. Epshtein M.N. Do future participles have a future? // Linguistics and poetics at the beginning of the third millennium. Proceedings of the international scientific conference. IRYA RAS. M., 2007.

2. Glovinskaya M.Ya. Active participles of the future // Modern Russian language. Active processes at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. M., 2008.

3. New magazine. “Russian language in the modern world.” No. 258. Boston - New York, 2010.

4. Vlahov A.V. Future participles in Russian. Final qualifying work of a bachelor of philology. St. Petersburg, 2010.

5. Buslaev F.I. Historical grammar of the Russian language. M., 1959. S. 110, 378.

6. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language. Grammatical doctrine of words. M.; L, 1947. P.277.

7. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language / Rep. ed. N.Yu. Shvedova. M., 1970. P.419.

8. Russian grammar /Ch. ed. N.Yu. Shvedova. T.I. M., 1980. P.667.

9. Russian grammar. M., 2014 (http:/rusgram.ru).

10. Belchikov Yu.A. Practical stylistics of the modern Russian language. M., 2012. P. 227.

Objective (associated with the adjective) features of a participle are the categories of gender, number and case, the possibility of forming short forms for passive participles, and the syntactic function of an agreed definition.

The participle is used in many Indo-European languages, Arabic, Hungarian, and also in many Eskimo languages ​​(for example, Sireniki).

In other languages, together with the gerund, it forms a special part of speech - English. Participle, German Partizip.

In russian language

The question of the status of the participle has been and is being resolved many times in Russian studies, but linguists agree that participles are formed from a verb. The formation of participles is closely related to the category of aspect and transitivity. For example, present and past participles can be formed from imperfect verbs, but only past participles can be formed from perfect verbs (although the meaning of future participles is making, writing- very transparent). In addition, passive participles can only be formed from transitive verbs.

Present participles are formed from the present tense stem. Active voice forms are formed using suffixes -ush- working) And -ash- holding). Forms of the present passive voice are formed using suffixes -om- , -eat- for verbs of the first conjugation ( slave) And -them- - for verbs of the second conjugation ( persecuted).

Past participles are formed from the stem of the infinitive. Active participles are formed using a suffix -vsh- for verbs whose stem ends in a vowel ( holding). Using a suffix -sh- such participles are formed from verbs with a stem on a consonant ( growing up).

Some verbs have specificity in the formation of participles; such verbs include verbs in -is , during the formation of which the original base is truncated ( sat down). From verbs with suffix -Well- It is possible to form two forms of participles, for example, extinguished - extinguished.

Passive past participles are formed using suffixes -nn- (from verbs to -at : read, Lost), -enn- (from verbs to -it And -whose : baked), -T- (from monosyllabic verbs: crumpled).

Passive participles usually have full ( verified) and short ( verified) shapes. Short forms vary by gender and number.

However, not all present passive participles have a short form. Since passive present participles ( slave, readable) relate primarily to book speech; there are some stylistic restrictions on the formation of such forms.

Therefore, from colloquial and some neutral verbs (for example, beat, cover, feed and so on) often passive present participles are not formed.

Also, not all verbs form passive past participles in Russian.

Participles are divided into passive past and present tenses, active past and present tenses.

Passive present participles

Formed from imperfective verbs, transitive using the suffixes -em- and -im-:

• -im- is written if the participle is formed from a verb of the second conjugation.
• -eat- ; -om- is written if the participle is formed from a verb of the first conjugation.

Examples:driven, driven, driven

Passive past participles

Formed from perfective verbs, transitive using the suffixes -enn- (-yonn-); -nn-; -T-; -en- (-yon-); -n- .

Examples: offended, fed, rejected.

Active present participles

Formed from imperfect verbs, transitive and intransitive, using the suffixes -ush- (-yush-), and -ash- (-yash-).

• -ushch- (-yusch-) is written if the participle is formed from a verb of the first conjugation.
• -ashch- (-yash-) is written if the participle is formed from a verb of the second conjugation.

Examples: whistling, trembling.

Active past participles

Formed from perfective verbs using suffixes:

• -вш- is used in words whose stem ends in a vowel.
• -ш- is used in words whose stem ends in a consonant.

Examples:watched, faded

Adjectivation

Adjectivation The transition of various parts of speech into adjectives is called, but most often it is participles that are subject to adjectivation.

When adjectivated, participles lose their verbal categories and begin to denote a constant, static, unchanging feature, thus a rethinking of participles occurs.

Grammatical features

The participle changes according to the characteristics of the adjective. It changes by numbers, by cases, by gender in the singular.

The participle can be perfect and imperfect, past and present tense. These signs for the sacrament do not change.

Some scientists consider participles to be an independent part of speech, since they have a number of features that are not characteristic of the verb.

As verb forms, participles have some of their grammatical features. They are perfect type and imperfect; present time and past; returnable And irrevocable. The participle has no future tense form.

Participles are active and passive.

Denoting a characteristic of an object, participles, like adjectives, grammatically depend on nouns that agree with them, that is, they become in the same case, number and gender as the nouns to which they refer.

Participles change by case, by number, by gender (singular).

Case, number, gender of participles is determined by the case, number, gender of the noun to which the participle refers. Some participles, like adjectives, have a full and short form., formed by adding a particle to the active past participle. would, is debatable. However, similar forms are sometimes found in the works of N.V. Gogol, and in the form of a stable circulation would be an honor- from many other authors.

Participial

A participle with dependent words is called a participial phrase. In a sentence, the participial phrase and the participle are a separate or non-separate agreed upon definition.

In Russian, the participial phrase is often separated by commas. If the participial phrase comes after the word being defined, it is separated by commas on both sides. When the participial phrase stands before the word being defined, commas are not placed, except in cases where the word being defined is expressed by a personal pronoun or the participial phrase denotes the reason. If after the participle phrase there is the end of the sentence, then a comma is placed only before the participial phrase.

Examples:

• A program written in haste performed an illegal operation.
• A hastily written program performed an illegal operation.

Simple sentences can be overloaded with participial phrases:

• A woodpecker, pecking at a tree growing in a forest covered with snow falling from the branches, is very cold.

SPbSU, St. Petersburg

ACTIVE FUTURE PARTICIPLE

PERFECT IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE1

1. In the overwhelming majority of grammatical descriptions of the Russian language, the paradigm of real participles includes 3 members: present participles and past participles of the perfect (SV) and imperfect form (NSV). However, a number of researchers (V.A. Plotnikova in [Shvedova (ed.) 1980], V.V. Vinogradov in [Vinogradov 1947], etc.) note the presence in the language of so-called future participles, derived from SV verbs according to the formation model present participles and which are “a deviation from the literary norm; for example: hundreds of excerpts from Greene’s books that will excite everyone (Paust.); examples of headlines that can attract attention (gas.)" [Shvedova (ed.) 1980].

2. Proposals have been repeatedly put forward to introduce future participles into the participial paradigm of the Russian language. The first of these attempts (which dealt with the Church Slavonic language) should be considered the grammar of M. Smotritsky [Smotritsky 1619], which provides active and passive participles of the future tense, such as pobgoshsh (active) - beaten / pobgoshshs# (pass.) and etc. [Smotritsky 1619: 182]. However, this grammar was more focused on the translation of texts from ancient Greek (which contains participles of all times, including the future), rather than on living spoken language, for which it was criticized, in particular, by Yu. Krizhanich, who wrote in 1666 that “...single verbs do not have a present participle,” and “Smotritsky gives a lot of perverse words as an example” [Kpgats 1984: 144].

1 The study was supported by the Russian Humanitarian Foundation grant No. 09-04-00264a “Grammar of attributive secondary predications (relativization in the Russian language).”

In recent years, future participles have also attracted the attention of researchers more than once, however, all the articles and notes on them known to us are mainly aimed at resolving the issue of their status in literary Russian, see, for example, [Epstein 2000; Shapoval, manuscript]. We set ourselves the task of analyzing the use of future participles based on texts found on the Internet by the Google search engine (www.google.com), as well as assessing their acceptability based on an experiment with native speakers.

3. For the study, 100 frequency SV verbs were selected that had no morphonological “contraindications” to the formation of future participles, and the first important result can be considered that for some of these participles (losing, going out, writing, finding, opening, saying) Google finds more than a hundred uses, and the person who comes for the communion finds more than five hundred.

To resolve the issue of independence (independence of context) of future participles, we analyzed 312 cases of their use from different points of view. We tracked in which cases they are most often used, whether they are necessarily part of a participial phrase, how often they are found in pairs with participles of the same root (drunk and drinking, sang and singing), and compared the data obtained with the data for participles allowed by normative grammar.

The results speak in favor of the usefulness of the forms under consideration. For example, the case distributions of uses of future participles SV and past participles SV2 do not demonstrate statistically significant differences (p >> 0.10), i.e., from this point of view, future participles behave exactly the same as "full" past participles.

From the point of view of inclusion / non-inclusion in the turnover, between the participles of the future and past tense (for comparison, we analyzed 312 examples of past participles

2 The distribution for past participles was calculated for contexts found in the National Corpus of the Russian Language (www.ruscorpora.ru) in the subcorpus with removed grammatical homonymy.

SW time) quite significant differences are observed. Thus, in our materials we found only 13 sentences with single future participles (4.17%), while single past participles make up 30.13% of uses (94 examples). However, these differences, in our opinion, are quite understandable if we take into account the “repressed” status of future participles and their rarity in the Russian language: a fairly large proportion of the single past participles we examined are fully or partially adjectival participles, such as past (grown by 6% for the past year) or sunken (moves with sunken lips), and adjectivation, as is known, occurs as a result of prolonged use of a word and a gradual change in its meaning, see [Lopatin 1966: 47].

An important parameter allowing us to make an assumption

about the reasons for the appearance of future participles in speech is their position in the participial phrase: they are almost 6.5 times more likely than the past participles of the SV from our sample to occupy a non-initial position in the participial phrase (46.15% versus 7.34% for past participles).

It can be assumed that it is precisely these kinds of cases that are “extreme”, forcing the carrier to fill in a cell that is usually not filled in in the participle paradigm. Indeed, the most successful replacement for the phrase with the future participle in the Russian language, as we will show below, is the relative clause, see (1):

(1) Thus was born a form with its own personality and originality, a happy combination of functionality and aesthetics that will not lose its appeal for many years. (Google)

However, since in relative clauses the member expressed by the relative pronoun always (with the exception of some special cases associated with the “pied catcher effect”) moves to the left periphery, starting dependent predication with any phrasal category that does not dominate the allied word (adverbs of time, etc.) etc.), the speaker can no longer use the “allowed” way of expressing the required meaning and is forced to use a non-literary form, see (2):

(2) I remember at the time when I wrote this, I considered myself a Great Writer, sooner or later who would write / *who would write a work of genius... (Google)

The last assumption that could indicate the lack of independence of future participles was that they are used exclusively or predominantly in pairs with past participles, see (3), or present participles, see (4), formed from a verb of the same aspect couples:

(3) We present to your attention a catalog of literary works published or published under the label “Neue Partisanen”. (Google)

(4) Poland is generally a unique, eternally dying, but not dying phenomenon in world history. (Google)

However, although such uses occur, they account for only 3.8% (12 cases), which, of course, cannot serve as a strong argument in favor of the lack of independence of the forms in question.

However, realizing that the examples found on the Internet could well have been generated by people who do not speak Russian well, we considered it necessary to conduct an experiment with literate native speakers, which would allow us to assess the acceptability of future participles from the point of view of speakers.

4. For the experiment, we selected 8 sentences from those discussed earlier, diverse in terms of actional characteristics and the argument structure of the verb from which the participle is formed, the structure of the participle phrase, etc. For each of the examples, we selected unique “analogues”: two sentences, if possible, repeating all the above characteristics of the original, but differing from it in that in one, instead of a future participle, there was a past participle SV with the same taxic meaning, and in the other, a relative clause3.

All proposals included in the questionnaire were found by us in the NCRC or on the Internet using the Google system, some of them underwent minimal editing before being presented to the public.

Here is an example of such a trio of sentences:

(5) But without respect there is no love, do not believe women who say otherwise! (Google)

(6) And I tell you right away: the person who has declared his candidacy will need to undergo an interview.

(7) And I will gladly laugh in the face of anyone who reports the presence of corruption at Moscow State University or MIPT.

During the experiment, respondents4 were asked to rate proposals on a four-point scale from absolutely acceptable (3) to absolutely unacceptable (0). For each sentence, the average score was calculated based on the results of the experiment, which was subsequently used for comparison.

As expected, the future participles prohibited by the norm turned out to be the least acceptable of the three options (average score - 1.26), however, since, for one reason or another, the two grammar-allowed options did not score the maximum number of points (average score for past participles was 2.15, and according to the most acceptable option - relative clauses - 2.39), we can say that the assessment by speakers of future participles is 53% of the recorded maximum, which, of course, is not much, but not so much that it can be neglected .

5. Thus, although in the Russian language the actual participles of the future tense SV are prohibited by grammar, but, being allowed structurally, they periodically occur in texts (especially when replacement is impossible, i.e., first of all, in a non-initial position in the participial phrase) , demonstrate noticeable similarities in behavior with “full-fledged” participial forms and are not perceived as completely marginal by native speakers.

4 For the experiment, 20 people aged from 18 to 43 years old who had received or were receiving higher education were selected. Schoolchildren and people with a philological education were not allowed to participate (these two groups of people, as it seemed to us, could be guided in their assessments primarily not by a sense of language, but by knowledge of normative grammar that prohibits the forms being studied).

Literature

Vinogradov 1947 - V. V. Vinogradov. Russian language. Grammatical doctrine of words. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1947.

Lopatin 1966 - V.V. Lopatin. Adjectivation of participles in its relation to word formation II Questions of Linguistics 5, 1966. pp. 37-47.

Shvedova (ed.) 198G - N. Yu. Shvedova (ed.). Russian grammar. T. 1-2. M.: Nauka, 198G.

Smotritsky 1619 - M. Smotritsky. Slavonic grammar correct Syntagma. Evye, 1619. Reprint: Kiev, 1979.

Shapoval, manuscript - V.V. Shapoval. There is a prize for the person who draws the house! (Future participles in our speech). (http:IIwww.ruscenter.ruI 73G.html)

Epstein 2GGG - M. N. Epstein. Participles of the future tense (doing) II Projective Lexicon of Mikhail Epstein. Issue 17. 2GGG. (http:IIold.russ.ruIantologIintelnetIdar17.html)

Krizanic 1984 - J. Krizanic. Gramaticno izkazanje ob ruskom jeziku. Sabrana djela Jurja Krizanica. Knj. 2. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti

- an unconjugated verbal form expressing a characteristic of a person or object that arises as a result of an action: comrade(Which?), arrived from Moscow(comrade who came from Moscow);
book(which?), read by me(the book I read).

The participle combines the grammatical features of a verb and an adjective. In it, as in the verb, the difference is , ; The participle controls the same case as the verb; the same adverbs can be attached to the participle as to the verb. But at the same time, the participle is declined and agrees with the noun in gender, number and case, like an adjective.

Participles are divided into valid And present and past passives. There is no future participle tense.

Active participles

Active participles denote a characteristic of a person or object that arises as a result of the actions of that person or object: reading student book, standing there is a table in the room.
Active participles are formed from transitive and intransitive verbs and retain the control characteristic of the verb; active participles of reflexive verbs retain the particle (meeting, met, met).

Formation of active participles

Active present participles are formed only from imperfective verbs by adding the present tense to the stem (for the first conjugation) or -ash-/-box-
push-ut - push-ushch-y (writing, writing, writing),
know - knowing (knowing, knowing, knowing),
knock-at - knock-ash-y (knocking, knocking, knocking),
pageó -yat - pageó -box (pageó building, building, building).

Active past participles formed from imperfective and perfective verbs by adding a suffix to the past tense stem -vsh-(after a vowel) or -sh-(after a consonant) plus generic endings of the adjective: wrote(nonsov.) - pisa-vsh-i, wrote-l(owl) - writing, carried(nonsov.) - brought it, brought it(owl) - brought it.

Passive participles

Passive participles denote a sign of a person or object undergoing some action: book, read comrade(a book that a friend read); house, built workers(the house that the workers built). Passive participles are formed only from transitive verbs.

Formation of passive participles

Passive present participles formed from imperfective verbs by adding a suffix to the present tense stem -eat-(for the first conjugation) or -them-(for the second conjugation) plus generic endings of the adjective:
read - read-e-th (readable, readable, readable),
vúd-im - vúd-im-y (visible, visible, visible).

Many imperfective transitive verbs do not form passive present participles (for example, from protect, beat, shave, bend, heat, hold, fry, measure, wash, crush, drink, heat, clean, sew and so on.).

Passive past participles are formed from transitive verbs of the imperfect and perfect forms by adding suffixes to the past tense stem -nn- , -enn- , -T- plus generic endings of the adjective: read-l - chúta-nn-y, brought - brought-y, closed-l - closed.

Suffix -nn- joins past tense stems ending in a vowel and I, Sometimes e:sow-l - sow-nn-y, uvúde-l - uvúde-nn-y.

Suffix -enn- (or -yonn- ) is added to stems ending in a consonant (see example above) or vowel And , which drops out (in this case, an alternation of the final consonants of the base occurs, similar to the alternations in the formation of the 1st line of the present or future simple tense): bought - purchased(cf. I'll buy), asked - asked(cf. I'll ask).

Suffix -T- joins the stems of verbs ending in the indefinite form with -no, -no, -here , and to monosyllabic stems (the prefix is ​​not taken into account): took it out(from take out) - take it out,number(from prick) - colo-th, wiped(from wipe off) — wiped, bi-l(from beat) — bú-t-y(similar to: nailed, broken).

The most common are the passive past participles of perfective verbs.

Declension of participles

Participles are inflected like full adjectives: real participles are inflected like adjectives with stems on sch, sh(For example, general, good), passive participles - modeled on adjectives with a base on a hard consonant (for example, new): reading, reading it... reading, reading it..., hú tann-y, hú Tann-oh etc.

Passive participles of the present and past tenses have a short form, which is formed similarly to the short form of adjectives: masculine - without ending, feminine - with ending -A , neuter - with ending -O , plural - with ending -s (for all genera): from darling - love, darling, darling, darlings; from brought - brought, brought. brought, brought.
In a sentence, short participles, like short adjectives, are used as a predicate (in combination with or without an auxiliary verb): Shop closed; Window was closed;
Books will be purchased .

• ← Communion →

Now I’ll tell you about a thing in our language that seems to exist, but which at the same time doesn’t seem to be there. These are future participles.

In general, communion is not only an unhygienic church procedure, but also a part of speech - a verbal adjective. There is a verb “groan”, and there is a participle formed from it “groaning”.

Participles are of the present tense - “breaking” - and there are of the past - “broken”. In the first case, the action is happening now, in the second - in the past. And now attention: what is not there. The future participle would be "breaker". If the “breaker” is the one who breaks, and the “breaker” is the one who broke, then the “breaker” is obviously the one who breaks. Quite a meaningful meaning. “The athlete who reaches the finish line first will receive a gold medal.”

Why can we say that this form does not exist in the language? If you are a prescriptivist, then look at Rosenthal's reference book, it has all the answers. If you are a descriptivist, then try to find the form “breaker” in the literature or at least fix it in oral speech. I found five crazy things all over the Internet, although now this post will also be based on this word. The word is not in dictionaries, it does not appear in literature. Nobody says that, and it wouldn’t occur to you to say that.

Why can we say that this form exists in the language? Firstly, because the mechanism, surprisingly, is productive. You can easily form the future participle of any verb (in the perfect form). Try: draw - draw, jump - jump, say - say, take and do - take and do. Secondly, because you know what each of these words means, you can use them in a sentence and understand sentences with these words.

For example, I will be very grateful to readers who correctly use any future participle in the comments. This sentence is absolutely true. In addition, it is an example of communication between native speakers using this form: you understand what I meant, and to which readers I will be very grateful. The word successfully served as a conductor of thought from the author to the reader.

It is interesting that the only participle of the future tense that is actually used in the Russian language is the word “future”, formed according to the same scheme from the verb “to be”.

Maybe the word “finder” does not exist, but it does not exist in some other sense, not in one in which the word “vozgurk” does not exist. There really is no such word. None of us even know what it could mean. And the mysterious participles of the future tense are, as it were, “almost there.” And you must admit, they even have some kind of ugly charm.

In short, I am in favor of using future participles. First of all, it's always fun to troll the guardians of language purity. Secondly, we will then have the only language among our neighbors that has such a feature. There is no such thing even in English, with its system of tenses: doing - willing to do? Thirdly, it’s a pity that such a serviceable mechanism in the language remains idle.

What do you think of the idea? Is there anyone among you who will develop the topic in the comments?