# производящая эти приборы (present active participle)



## wonlon

I have been studying _active participles_ these few days.

I met this example in my grammar reference book, it demonstrates the interchange between _active participles_ and _subordinate clauses of который_.

i. Компания, *производящ**ая* эти приборы, *появилась *на рынке два года назад.
ii. Компания,* котор**ая** производит* эти приборы, *появилась *на рынке два года назад.

The grammar book explains that the present active participle "denotes an action which is *simultaneous*
with the action or state denoted by the main verb".

Then I wonder why sentence ii. is not *котор**ая** производи**ла*, since the main verb *"появилась" *is in past tense.

But then if the company_ now produces (present tense)_ the equipment, and it _appeared_ 2 years ago (_past tense_). What participle should I put here?

Компания, *_____________*эти приборы, *появилась *на рынке два года назад.


----------



## gvozd

wonlon said:


> Then I wonder why sentence ii. is not *котор**ая** производи**ла*, since the main verb *"появилась" *is in past tense.



This means the company stopped to produce those particular goods or ceased to exist.


----------



## gvozd

wonlon said:


> But then if the company_ now produces (present tense)_ the equipment, and it _appeared_ 2 years ago (_past tense_). What participle should I put here?
> 
> Компания, *_____________*эти приборы, *появилась *на рынке два года назад.



It should be производящая.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> The grammar book explains that the present active participle "denotes an action which is *simultaneous*
> with the action or state denoted by the main verb".


This is just wrong. Present active participle can 'combine' with the main verb in any tense (better say not main verb, but a verb in the main clause, the clause with a participle being subordinate):
Компания, производящая (которая производит) приборы, скоро *разорится *(*работает *успешно, *появилась *два года назад).
So you can easily change present active participle to the verb with который without any influence on the main clause.

And just the same for past active participles:
Компания, производившая (которая производила) приборы, скоро *разорится *(*работает *успешно, *появилась *два года назад).


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> This is just wrong. Present active participle can 'combine' with the main verb in any tense (better say not main verb, but a verb in the main clause, the clause with a participle being subordinate):
> Компания, производящая (которая производит) приборы, скоро *разорится *(*работает *успешно, *появилась *два года назад).
> So you can easily change present active participle to the verb with который without any influence on the main clause.
> 
> And just the same for past active participles:
> Компания, производившая (которая производила) приборы, скоро *разорится *(*работает *успешно, *появилась *два года назад).



I have another book which also mentions that:
(translation from Chinese)(* indicates my remarks)

Use of present active participle (below shortened PAP):

1. Simultaneous meaning: PAP indicates an action which is _simultaneous_ with the action or state denoted by the main verb.
_e.g. 1. На дворе шумят дети, *играющие* в минифутбол.
e.g. 2. Вокруг Землёй будет лететь новый спутник, *держащий* радиосвязь с центром._

If the PAP phrase is to be transformed into subordinate clause of который, the tense of the transformed verb should be determined by the PAP's meaning. (*this is vague, but I think it means _= tense of main verb_)

Therefore,
_e.g. 1. На дворе шумят дети, *котор**ые* *играю**т* в минифутбол.
e.g. 2. Вокруг Землёй будет лететь новый спутник, который *будет **держа**ть* радиосвязь с центром._

2. Universal time meaning: the action does not have specific time boundaries.
e.g. Самые опытные и самые талантный - это народные массы,  *принимающие * участие в производстеенной практике.
e..g. Народ и только народ является  *движущей * силой, *творящей *мировую историю.


----------



## gvozd

wonlon said:


> _e.g. 2. Вокруг Землёй будет лететь новый спутник, *держащий* радиосвязь с центром._



Oh my god. Вокруг *Земли́* будет *лета́ть* новый спутник, держащий радиосвязь с центром.


----------



## wonlon

wonlon said:


> I have been studying _active participles_ these few days.
> 
> ,,, "denotes an action which is *simultaneous*
> with the action or state denoted by the main verb"



This quote is from_ A Comprehensive Russian Grammar, Terence Wade [Third Edition]._ I have two other books which mentioned the simultaneous use.


----------



## wonlon

gvozd said:


> Oh my god. Вокруг *Земли́* будет *лета́ть* новый спутник, держащий радиосвязь с центром.



_e.g. 2. Вокруг Земли будет лететь новый спутник, *держащий* радиосвязь с центром._
_e.g. 2. Вокруг Землёй будет лететь новый спутник, который *будет **держа**ть* радиосвязь с центром._

The book actually writes the first _Земли_, and the second _Землёй.
_But may it be correct to use the determinate motion verb лететь?


----------



## wonlon

I beg cyanista not delete my quotes.


----------



## wonlon

gvozd said:


> Не лететь, а летать. What do you mean by simultaneous use? In this sentence будет летать - Future Tense and держащий is Present Tense.



It is a topical wording.

Here it means  if будет лететь is future tense, держащий is also future tense. So the tense of the PAP depends on the main verb (or "verb in the main clause").

But if you say держащий is present tense, this seems not to make sense, since the satellite is still not launched (as it says_ it will fly_).


----------



## gvozd

wonlon said:


> Here it means if будет лететь is future tense, держащий is also future tense.



Totally wrong. Tense of a verb or participle isn't determined by context. Держащий always means present tense.


----------



## wonlon

gvozd said:


> Totally wrong. Tense of a verb or participle isn't determined by context. Держащий always means present tense.



But the new satellite is not even flying yet, it will fly* in the future*, how can it *now *be keeping radio connection with the centre?


----------



## Explorer41

But in the future it will be now, right? So there's nothing bad with the logic.
It's just that there's a problem with the participles -- they don't have a Future Tense. So we have to do somehow without the Future Tense of the present active participles.


----------



## gvozd

wonlon said:


> But the new satellite is not even flying yet, it will fly* in the future*, how can it *now *be keeping radio connection with the centre?



 This is the Russian language, my dear friend. Sadly, I'm not a linguist and cannot explain these subtleties. Wait for somebody more competent.


----------



## Explorer41

gvozd said:


> This means the company stopped to produce those particular goods or ceased to exist.


(I cite the wording: "компания, которая производила эти товары, появилась на рынке два года назад")

*gvozd*, it seems to me that this doesn't mean the company doesn't produce these goods anymore.  Nothing is said about the present state of the things. But of course, the silence may mean something! And may not mean.

PS: of course, I'm not a linguist, too. I just try to use some logic  . We all are learning here!

===========================

EDIT: by the way, the phrase "Самые опытные и самые талантный - это народные массы..." is wrong -- there is no such word "талантный", and even if it existed, it would be "талантные" here.


----------



## gvozd

Explorer41 said:


> *gvozd*, it seems to me that this doesn't mean the company doesn't produce these goods anymore.  Nothing is said about the present state of the things. But of course, the silence may mean something! And may not mean.



I disagree but I won't insist


----------



## wonlon

Take the reverse angle, what participle would you put here to keep the same meaning?

_Вокруг Земл*и* будет лететь новый спутник, который *будет **держа**ть* радиосвязь с центром._
_Вокруг Земл*и* будет лететь новый спутник, ______________ радиосвязь с центром._


----------



## Explorer41

"держащий"

But if I wished to keep the meaning in a most precise manner, then I wouldn't use the participle at all.

And the right verb here is "летать". "летать" is a continuos, repeatable action (something like a "property verb"), whereas "лететь" is not -- it is just a state of things.


----------



## gvozd

wonlon said:


> Take the reverse angle, what participle would you put here to keep the same meaning?
> 
> _Вокруг Земл*и* будет лететь новый спутник, который *будет **держа**ть* радиосвязь с центром._
> _Вокруг Земл*и* будет лететь новый спутник, ______________ радиосвязь с центром._



Again and again. Лет*а́*ть! It should be держащий. As Explorer41 reminded, participles don't have a future tense.


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> This is just wrong. Present active participle can 'combine' with the main verb in any tense (better say not main verb, but a verb in the main clause, the clause with a participle being subordinate):
> Компания, производящая (которая производит) приборы, скоро *разорится *(*работает *успешно, *появилась *два года назад).
> So you can easily change present active participle to the verb with который without any influence on the main clause.
> 
> And just the same for past active participles:
> Компания, производившая (которая производила) приборы, скоро *разорится *(*работает *успешно, *появилась *два года назад).



1. But what if I make a sentence, what do you put on the line to keep the same meaning?

Компания, *производящ**ая* эти приборы, *появится*_ (future tense) _на рынке через два года (after 2 years).
Компания, *которая _____________* эти приборы, *появится *на рынке через два года.


2. Take the reverse angle, what participle do you put here to keep the same meaning?

Компания, *которая будет производить* эти приборы, *появится* на рынке через два года.
Компания, *____________* эти приборы, *появится*на рынке через два года.


----------



## Explorer41

wonlon said:


> 1. But what if I make a sentence, what do you put on the line to keep the same meaning?
> 
> Компания, *производящ**ая* эти приборы, *появится*_ (future tense) _на рынке через два года (after 2 years).
> Компания, *которая _____________* эти приборы, *появится *на рынке через два года.
> 
> 
> 2. Take the reverse angle, what participle do you put here to keep the same meaning?
> 
> Компания, *которая будет производить* эти приборы, *появится* на рынке через два года.
> Компания, *____________* эти приборы, *появится*на рынке через два года.



1. You can always substitute "производящая" with "которая производит". It is always true for every sentence (with other verbs too). Well, maybe I mixed some exceptions, but...
And similarly you can always substitute "производившая" with "которая производила".

2. In this particular case I wouldn't use any participle. There are no active participles in the future tense. Sometimes you can use a participle in the present tense to substitute a verb in the future tense, but not always.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> 1. But what if I make a sentence, what do you put on the line to keep the same meaning?
> 
> Компания, *производящ**ая* эти приборы, *появится*_ (future tense) _на рынке через два года (after 2 years).
> Компания, *которая _____________* эти приборы, *появится *на рынке через два года.


Которая производит. 
But it's rather weird semanically, because how can it produce anything if it is only going to appear in the future? 
But you can say: Компания, которая может (but better сможет) производить эти приборы, появится через два года.




> 2. Take the reverse angle, what participle do you put here to keep the same meaning?
> 
> Компания, *которая будет производить* эти приборы, *появится* на рынке через два года.
> Компания, *____________* эти приборы, *появится*на рынке через два года.




No participle. Just because there is no Future Participle in Russian.



Wonlon, I think you should just grasp one thing: In Russian there is no sequence of tenses like in English, the main and subordinate clauses each talk about separate events which can coincide in time with each other, or can not coincide. Of course, when you use a participle instead of который + verb, it is not a subordinate clause, but the point is quite the same - tenses of a participle and of a main verb have nothing to do with each other, they each live their own life.


----------



## wonlon

But see this:
_
A Comprehensive Russian Grammar, Terence Wade [Third Edition]:
_
(i) The present active participle denotes an action which is simultaneous with the action or state denoted by the main verb:

_Выставки, рассказывающие о предупреждении несчастных случаев, всегда вызывают большой интерес. Exhibitions which describe accident prevention always arouse great interest._

Note
The main verb may denote present *or* past action:
_
Я видел/вижу собаку, __бегущую __по берегу. ‘I saw/see a dog running along the shore’._

If the book is correct, then бегущий may be in present tense or past tense, depending on the tense of увидеть.
What do you think?

I really hope that I can go for the simple, not to over-think and just take PAP as always present tense. But things seem not that simple. The book, though gets people (me) into trouble, writes things with a reason, right?


----------



## Explorer41

wonlon said:


> _Я видел/вижу собаку, __бегущую __по берегу. ‘I saw/see a dog running along the shore’._
> 
> If the book is correct, then бегущий may be in present tense or past tense, depending on the tense of увидеть.
> What do you think?
> 
> I really hope that I can go for the simple, not to over-think and just take PAP as always present tense. But things seem not that simple. The book, though gets people (me) into trouble, writes things with a reason, right?


The tense of "бегущая" is of course present -- it is a grammatical property of the word "бегущая". As for meaning... Yes, the book is right. OK. By the way, you can as well say "я видел собаку, бежавшую по берегу", and it will mean roughly the same.

See this: "собака, бегущая по берегу, была щенком два года назад". Here the actions are not simultaneous, though the correlation between tenses is the same.
I wonder what is the difference... What I see is that in my latter example the subjects of both actions are the same. Probably that's why the meaning changed, and actions are not simultaneous anymore.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> The present active participle denotes an action which is simultaneous with the action or state denoted by the main verb:




No, this is wrong. It can be not simultaneous as well.



> _Выставки, рассказывающие о предупреждении несчастных случаев, всегда вызывают большой интерес. Exhibitions which describe accident prevention always arouse great interest._




Выставки, рассказывающие о предупреждении  несчастных случаев, всегда вызывали (будут вызывать) большой интерес. 


> Note
> The main verb may denote present *or* past action:
> _
> Я видел/вижу собаку, __бегущую __по берегу. ‘I saw/see a dog running along the shore’._
> 
> If the book is correct, then бегущий may be in present tense or past tense, depending on the tense of увидеть.
> What do you think?



No, бегущий can be in present or past tense depending on what you want to say and independing on the tense of увидеть. 

Я увидел собаку, бегущую по берегу.
Я увидел собаку, бежавшую по берегу.

These two sentences mean almost the same, but the second one is as if you are telling from today about the past. And the first sentence is like you are telling it from the past. Is it clear?


И тут я вижу собаку, бегущую по берегу.
This is also the same, but even more from the past, as if you are right there, in the past, right now.

Я вижу собаку, бегущую по берегу.
Generally, in common case, this is being said now, about the present.


----------



## Syline

wonlon said:


> 1. But what if I make a sentence, what do you put on the line to keep the same meaning?
> 
> Компания, *производящ**ая* эти приборы, *появится*_ (future tense) _на рынке через два года (after 2 years).
> Компания, *которая _____________* эти приборы, *появится *на рынке через два года.
> 
> 
> 2. Take the reverse angle, what participle do you put here to keep the same meaning?
> 
> Компания, *которая будет производить* эти приборы, *появится* на рынке через два года.
> Компания, *____________* эти приборы, *появится*на рынке через два года.


1) Компания, которая *будет производить* эти приборы, появится на рынке через два года. 
2) Компания, *производящая* эти приборы, появится на рынке через два года. (I'm not yet convinced that the present participle will be grammatically incorrect here, I need to see a strict rule.)

The tense of the participle can be simultaneous either with the action in the main clause or with the moment of speech. 

I suggest the following: 

*1.* If the action in the main clause takes place in the present choose the participle tense correlating with the moment of speech.
E.g. Компания, производящая (produces in the present) эти приборы, является лидером на мировом рынке. or Компания, производившая (produced in the past) эти приборы, является лидером на мировом рынке.
      Я вижу собаку, бегающую (present) по берегу. or Я вижу собаку, бегавшую (past) по берегу.    

*2.* If the action in the main clause takes place in the past determine what kind of action is expressed by the participle: non-complete or completed by the moment of speech.
*
2.1.* If the action expressed by the participle is non-complete use the present tense.
E.g. Компания, производящая (produces in the present) эти приборы, появилась на рынке два года назад.
      Я видел собаку, живущую (still lives there) в соседнем доме. 
      Я уже видел собаку, бегающую (running now) по берегу. 
*
2.2.* If the action expressed by the participle is completed determine if it is prior to the past action in the main clause.
*
2.2.1.* If it is prior use the past tense of the participle. 
E.g. Я увидел собаку, бегавшую по берегу за два дня до этого.    

*2.2.2.* If the actions in both clauses are simultaneous use whichever tense you like. 
E.g. Я увидел собаку, бегущую (was running when I saw it) по берегу.
      =
      Я увидел собаку, бежавшую по берегу. (was running when I saw it)     

Or keep in mind this:


Maroseika said:


> These two sentences mean almost the same, but the second one is as if you are telling from today about the past. And the first sentence is like you are telling it from the past.


----------



## Maroseika

Syline said:


> The tense of the participle can be simultaneous either with the action in the main clause or with the moment of speech.


But is it that the moment of speech can't be other than both? Любовь, вспыхнувшая так ярко, угаснет через год. 




> I suggest the following:


I really cannot understand why we need any rule here, if the two actions are absolutely independent? 



> *1.* If the action in the main clause takes place in the present choose the participle tense correlating with the moment of speech.


So the folloiwng is incorrect? 
Уверяю вас, человек, ограбивший этот банк, сейчас сидит в тюрьме.
Уверяю вас, человек, грабивший банки в этом городе в прошлом году, сейчас сидит в тюрьме.




> *2.* If the action in the main clause takes place in the past determine what kind of action is expressed by the participle: non-complete or completed by the moment of speech.
> *2.1.* If the action expressed by the participle is non-complete use the present tense.


So the folloiwng is incorrect?
Человек, грабивший банки в этом городе в прошлом году, уже вышел из тюрьмы.

My point: *there is no rule to choose the tense of the main verb and participle, tenses of the participle and main verb are grammatically independant from each other, all depends only on the sense. *


----------



## Syline

Maroseika said:


> But is it that the moment of speech can't be other than both? Любовь, вспыхнувшая так ярко, угаснет через год.


I must have misused "either... or...". What I meant is "и... и...", not "либо... либо...". How to say it in English?   



> I really cannot understand why we need any rule here


You don't need it because Russian is your native language. But for a foreigner it's not that simple.



> So the folloiwng is incorrect?
> Уверяю вас, человек, ограбивший этот банк, сейчас сидит в тюрьме.
> Уверяю вас, человек, грабивший банки в этом городе в прошлом году, сейчас сидит в тюрьме.


Why should your examples be incorrect? They don't contradict with what I wrote. The action in the main clause takes place in the present (сейчас сидит в тюрьме), so the tense of the participle depends on time-correlation between the moment of speech and the action expressed by the participle. Here we have "ограбивший / грабивший" (past forms) because this action is completed by the moment of speech.      



> So the folloiwng is incorrect?
> Человек, грабивший банки в этом городе в прошлом году, уже вышел из тюрьмы.


And again I see no contradiction. The man robbed banks last year (the action is prior to the moment of speech, it took place in the past). You're quoting Item 2.1. where I talk about non-complete actions, the actions that take place in the present.


----------



## Explorer41

*Syline*, you did not comment anyhow the guess I made to answer *wonlon's* question (about the point whether a main verb and a present active participle have the same subject or not). I made that guess though I'm not sure whether it's strictly a rule. What do you think about that? I mean, why do you think that action completeness is relevant here, and not the subjects coindentity? You did not give any examples nor thoughts to support your view, and I wonder.

My statement is: when subjects of two actions are different, *wonlon*'s book is right; and when they are the same, *Maroseika* is right. What do you think?

I restate the point which confused *wonlon* (unfortunately, he did not expressed it in one post, so I needed to gather it from the whole thread). He has seen an example where a main verb is in the Past Tense, and an active participle is in the Present Tense (present active participle). In that example ("я видел бегущую по берегу собаку") the actions expressed by both are concurrent and simultaneous. Then he has seen an example where the correlation between tenses of a main verb and of an active participle is the same, but the meaning is obviously different (actions are not concurrent). He has wondered and asked a question - the question of this thread.


----------



## wonlon

Has Rosendal (I don't remember the scholar's name) said anything about this?


----------



## Maroseika

Syline said:


> You don't need it because Russian is your native language. But for a foreigner it's not that simple.



Completely disagree. There is absolutely no rule in Russian, talking about correlation between the participle and main verb, or between subordinate and main verbs in case of substitution a participle with a verb + который. There is no rule for correlation just because there is no correlation.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> Has Rosendal (I don't remember the scholar's name) said anything about this?


No, Rosenthal says nothing about it, because there is nothing to say about. No rule, no dependance, no correlation. The tenses of the participle and main verb depend only on the speaker's will to say what he wants to say. Each combination of tenses expresses new sense or nuance of sense, as already demonstrated by use of examples.


----------



## gvozd

How funny to learn something new about your native language from a foreign source


----------



## Explorer41

wonlon said:


> Has Rosendal (I don't remember the scholar's name) said anything about this?


Розенталь, Rosenthal.

He has - it's there in a book (probably in some other books too, I don't know). He has said essentialy the same your grammar book has said, and cited a few examples (like "видел детей, играющих на бульваре"), which support his view. He did not cite any examples like "собака, бегущая по берегу, родилась три года назад" and therefore did not comment them.

I think, it's because his book is not intended to foreigners learning Russian, but rather to Russians learning write clearly. We Russians know such issues like the one you're asking about by heart, so there's no need to explain them.


----------



## Syline

*Explorer41

*Wonlon just misunderstood this one: 


wonlon said:


> Note
> The main verb may denote present *or* past action:
> _
> Я видел/вижу собаку, __бегущую __по берегу. ‘I saw/see a dog running along the shore’._
> 
> If the book is correct, then бегущий may be in present tense or past tense, depending on the tense of увидеть.


The book says quite the opposite. In the example with a dog both actions are simultaneous regardless of the tense of увидеть in the main clause. We can say "я видел собаку, бегущую по берегу" and "я вижу собаку, бегущую по берегу".    



Explorer41 said:


> You gave not any examples.


You're right. I should have done this. I will add them to the post #26.


----------



## Explorer41

Syline said:


> Wonlon just misunderstood this one:
> 
> The book says quite the opposite. In the example with a dog both actions are simultaneous regardless of the tense of увидеть in the main clause. We can say "я видел собаку, бегущую по берегу" and "я вижу собаку, бегущую по берегу".


I think, *wonlon* rather mixed up the notions "tense" (which is a grammatical property of a word) and "time of action" (which is part of a word's meaning). And we misunderstood him


----------



## Maroseika

Explorer41 said:


> Розенталь, Rosenthal.
> 
> He has - it's there in a book (probably in some other books too, I don't know). He has said essentialy the same your grammar book has said,



Excuse me, but there is nothing like in that grammar. In contrary, he says:
Значение времени в причастии относительное: в одних случаях наблюдается соотносительность времен, выраженных причастием и глаголом-сказуемым; в других случаях время, выраженное причастием, соотносится с моментом речи, предшествует ему.
It's just an observation, it's not a rule.

And one more important observation that we have not touched yet:
При прошедшем времени глагола-сказуемого причастие настоящего времени указывает на постоянный признак, причастие прошедшего времени – на временный признак.


----------



## Explorer41

Oh, yes, my mistake was I didn't understand what Rosenthal talks about. I got it.

You meant he said that sometimes the actions expressed by a present active participle and a predicate verb are the same, and sometimes are not? Yes, it was my first thought too, when I read this. The formulation is turbid of course. But see at examples: he did not mean times of actions (the matter we now discuss), he meant tenses. His examples were about tenses, not about meanings. He did not need to explain meanings.

So I was wrong now, and you were right when you said Rosenthal said nothing about the discussed matter. At least in this book - no, he did not, I agree with you.


----------



## Syline

I've added examples. Item 2.2.2 is a peculiar one. 
Explorer41, what were you talking about "subjects coidentity"?


----------



## Syline

Maroseika said:


> The tenses of the participle and main verb depend only on the speaker's will to say what he wants to say.


А я ничего такого и не говорю, просто пытаюсь упорядочить. Всякий язык - это система.


----------



## Maroseika

Syline said:


> I've added examples. Item 2.2.2 is a peculiar one.



Syline, I'm afraid all your examples are wrong. Let's consider this one, for example:



> 2.1. If the action expressed by the participle is non-complete use the present tense.
> Я видел собаку, живущую (still lives there) в соседнем доме.
> Я уже видел собаку, бегающую (running now) по берегу.



But why can't we say:
Я видел собаку, жившую на берегу.
Я уже видел где-то  собаку, бегавшую утром по нашему двору. 

You maybe say it means quite different thing than in your example, different correlation between the time of two actions. Yes, it does. And this is exactly what I mean: tenses of two actions depend only on the content of the phrase but not from each other.


----------



## Maroseika

Syline said:


> А я ничего такого и не говорю, просто пытаюсь упорядочить. Всякий язык - это система.



Без сомнения. Но в данном конкретном случае в русском языке нет ничего такого, что следовало бы изучать специально. Никакого строгого согласования времен, все зависит исключительно от смысла, который вкладывается во фразу. Время одного действия не оказывает никакого влияния на другое - ни в грамматическом, ни в физическом смысле. Единственный ограничитель - причинно-следственная связь, но она не зависит от языка.
Поэтому не стоит городить правило из трех пунктов и четырех подпунктов там, где никакого правила нет, где все происходит естественным путем, не зависящим от языка, на котором это описывается.


----------



## Explorer41

Syline said:


> Explorer41, what were you talking about "subjects coidentity"?


Excuse me, it is a really bad word, I just failed to find a better one. I meant... Well, I meant, what I said before: the point, whether the subjects of two clauses - one with a participle and one with a verb - are the same words or not (that is, whether their identities are the same  ). This word doesn't exist in English, but I hoped, as we all are not English natives, it's easier for us than for them to understand non-existent words  .

Examples: "я видел собаку, бегущую по берегу" vs "собака, бегущая по берегу, родилась три года назад". My comments are in the post #24 (I tried to answer *wonlon*'s question as I understood him - #29).


----------



## Syline

Maroseika said:


> But why can't we say:
> Я видел собаку, жившую на берегу.


Err, maybe because if the dog still lives (non-complete) on shore it'd be strange to say about it as if it were gone, no?     



Maroseika said:


> You maybe say it means quite different thing than in your example, different correlation between the time of two actions. Yes, it does.


So where am I wrong? Your examples are described in other items. How they are related to *2.1* god only knows.


----------



## Syline

*Explorer41*, why I asked... you see, i. 2.2.2 may not work if the Subject and the noun defined by the Participle are the same word.


----------



## Maroseika

Syline said:


> Err, maybe because if the dog still lives (non-complete) on shore it'd be strange to say about it as if it were gone, no?



- Помнишь, в прошлом году мы снимали дачу, и там была глупая собака, жившая на берегу в деревянной будке?
- Нет, я не помню собаки, жившей на берегу.
Or:
Мне казалось, что я уже где-то видел горничную, приходившую по вторникам убираться у нас в номере. 



> So where am I wrong? Your examples are described in other items. How they are related to *2.1* god only knows.


In particluar, you are wrong stating that "if the action expressed by the participle is non-complete use the present tense".
I showed you that it can also be in the past tense. No system, only the context.


----------



## Syline

Maroseika said:


> - Помнишь, в прошлом году мы снимали дачу, и там была глупая собака, жившая на берегу в деревянной будке?
> - Нет, я не помню собаки, жившей на берегу.


OK, this example is good. But the second one is a story-telling, everything is described as past events.


----------



## Maroseika

Syline said:


> OK, this example is good. But the second one is a story-telling, everything is described as past events.


And so what? You are proposing a rule. So now you must add an ammedment that this rule doesn't work in the case of story-telling?


----------



## Explorer41

Syline said:


> *Explorer41*, why I asked... you see, i. 2.2.2 may not work if the Subject and the noun defined by the Participle are the same word.


That's what I'm saying.  (roughly)


----------



## Syline

Maroseika said:


> And so what? You are proposing a rule. So now you must add an ammedment that this rule doesn't work in the case of story-telling?





Syline said:


> everything is described as *past* events.


Вы еще приплетите сюда повествование в настоящем времени для описания событий прошлого. Не надо все в кучу валить. И если вы называете это "правилом", то должны бы знать, что у правил бывают исключения.


----------



## Maroseika

Syline said:


> Вы еще приплетите сюда повествование в настоящем времени для описания событий прошлого. Не надо все в кучу валить. И если вы называете это "правилом", то должны бы знать, что у правил бывают исключения.


Я не думаю, что предлагаемая вами разветвленная система правил и исключений поможет иностранцу подобрать верное сочетание причастия и глагола там, где это сочетание зависит только от контекста. В рассматриваемом случае  причастие и глагол относятся к разным действиям и поэтому во временно́м плане могут сочетаться произвольно.


----------



## wonlon

Maybe I should ask Terence Wade why he wrote so, but I should not bother him in the underground.


----------



## justAnote

Let me add more fun to this discussion 


In "Дракон, бегущий по берегу" the participate "бегущая" simply describes "дракон" as you see it running.
In "Дракон, бежавший по берегу" the participate "бежавшая" simply describes "дракон" as you *saw* it running.


Now.. let us consider the following sentences...
The dragon has a white collar.
The dragon had a white collar.
The dragon will have a white collar.


Now let us add up those to make:
1. The dragon running along the shore has a white collar. На драконе, бегущим по берегу, надет белый ошейник.
(It's running as you are telling this.)


2. The dragon running alog the shore had a white collar. На драконе, бегущим по берегу, был белый ошейник.
(You saw a dragon. It's a running-along-the-shore dragon.  Later you tell your story about the dragon and its funny white collar to .. a doctor 


3. The dragon who ran along the shore has a white collar. На драконе, бежавшим по берегу, белый ошейник.
(You _saw_ a dragon running along the shore. You came to the dragon stables then and you single out one. The one who actually run along the shore has a white collar)


4. The dragon who ran along the shore had a white collar. На драконе, бежавшим по берегу, был белый ошейник.
(You were extremely lucky to enjoy The Millenia Dragon Races.. Not all the dragons in the Emeperor's stables run along the shore. The one with white collar did ;-)


5. The dragon who will run along the shore has a white collar. На драконе, который побежит по берегу, белый ошейник.
(At the stables.. you point to the hurdle of dragons and say to your girlf "See? That one will run along the shore. The one with a white collar on") 


6. The dragon who will run along the shore will have a white collar. На драконе, который побежит по берегу, будет белый ошейник.
(The Millenia Dragon Races are about to begin. Not all the dragons will run along the shore. The one with a white collar will 


7. The dragon who ran along the shore will have a white collar. На драконе, бежавшим по берегу, будет белый ошейник.
(The Millenia Dragon Races are over. You invite everybody to the stables. Before you come there you made one of your servants put a white collar on one of the dragons. You tell your guests "На драконе, бежавшим по берегу, будет белый ошейник". so that they could make out which one was running)


*Disclaimer.*
No dragon was hurt during the infamouse Millenia Dragon Races 


С наступающим!/Happy coming year!


----------

