# Adjectives and Participles in Slavic Languages



## LilianaB

I have noticed that certain words in Slavic languages, Russian among them, which have adjectival functions and come from verbs are classified as adjectives, not as participles. Is it common in other Slavic languages? What are its grammatical implications? Is this is something present in other languages as well, non-Slavic languages, you are welcome to comment.


----------



## berndf

I am not sure what you refer to precisely in Russian but maybe these general observations may help you:

Participles are verbal adjectives; well, mostly. That is there primary function, though they can serve also as nouns or adverbs in many languages. But not every verbal adjective is also a participle. Participles have standardized meanings and formation rules while the meaning of adjectives depend of the individual case and they need not follow standardized formation patters. In English, e.g., you would call sleeping a present participle because it follows a regular pattern and has a standardized meaning: _XXX-ing_ means performing the action/having the state of _XXX-ing_. By contrast sleepy is a verbal adjective. You cannot derive its meaning or its form by a grammaticalized rule.

In some languages, verbal adjectives and participles may look the same but it is still necessary to distinguish between a participle used like an adjective and a "proper" verbal adjectie because they behave differently: E.g. in French attributively used present participles are invariant and may have objects while verbal adjectives are declined and cannot have objects. Example: _L'eau courant*e* _(verbal adjective: feminine -e ending)and _La femme courant dans la rue _(participle: no feminine -e ending and and object).


----------



## francisgranada

LilianaB said:


> I have noticed that certain words in Slavic languages, Russian among them, which have adjectival functions and come from verbs are classified as adjectives, not as participles ....


As to the Slovak (and Czech), this may be valid too (until a certain grade). But there are also verbs that practically do not have any past passive participle at all (or at least they are not used any more), e.g. _mať _(to have), _byť _(to be), _ísť _(to go) etc.

Both the "hesitation" in the classification (particple and/or adjective) and the lack of these participles in some cases may be of the same origin: these particples are used mostly in adjectival sense (unlike in the Romance and Germanic languages, where they are part of grammatical constructions as well, like "he has loved", "ha amado", "er ist gegangen", "il est allé"  etc ...). 

On the other hand, from the historical/etymological point of view, at least in the IE languages, I can't see too much difference between the _past passive participle_ and a "passive" _adjective _created/derived from the stem of a verb.  If so,  the grammatical cathegory of "past [passive] participle" may be, perhaps, of later date. With other words, these "participles” once might be simply “adjectives” (like those created from nouns) in the PIE period and only later on, they became "grammaticalized" and acquired the function of what we call today "participle".

(I am looking forward to the opinion of others ...)

P.S. In the Slavic languages it's more correct to speak about "past passive participle" instead of "past participle" because there are/were also other types of "past participles".


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> ...  E.g. in French attributively used present participles are invariant and may have objects while verbal adjectives are declined and cannot have objects. Example: _L'eau courant*e* _(verbal adjective: feminine -e ending)and _La femme courant dans la rue _(participle: no feminine -e ending and and object).


_L'eau courant*e* _corresponds to _El agua corriente_ and _L'acqua corrente_ (Spanish and Italian, respectively). But "_courant" _in case of _La femme courant dans la rue_ seems to be some "rest/remainder" of the gerund in French (Sp/It corriendo/correndo), or not?

For *LilianaB*: Is your question about the "past passive participle" in the Slavic languages (as I have understood it) or about the Slavic participles in general? Could you, please, give us some example, when they "... are classified as adjectives, not as participles" ?


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> _L'eau courant*e* _corresponds to _El agua corriente_ and _L'acqua corrente_ (Spanish and Italian, respectively). But "_courant" _in case of _La femme courant dans la rue_ seems to be some "rest/remainder" of the gerund in French (Sp/It corriendo/correndo), or not?


Yes, the pres. ppl. (characterized by _-nt-_ in Latin) and the gerund/gerundive (characterized by _-nd-_ in Latin) merged in French. At one development stage of language, French once has final obstruent devoicing (that's why we have_ positi*f*_ in masculine but _positi*v*e_ in feminine). At that time the uninflected gerund/gerundive (_-nd_) must have become indistinguishable from an uninflected participle (_-nt_). This merger is the historical reason for the peculiar behaviour of the modern present participle.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, verbal adjectives, this is exactly what I mean. So the basic difference between them and other participles is their function mostly -- they probably modify nouns and behave exactly like other adjectives, whereas other participles don't. Could they be also classified as a special type of a participle?


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> Yes, verbal adjectives, this is exactly what I mean. So the basic difference between them and other participles is their function mostly -- they probably modify nouns and behave exactly like other adjectives, whereas other participles don't. Could they be also classified as a special type of a participle?


What other participles? All participles are in essence verbal adjectives. You've turned it upside-down. Participles are a special type of verbal adjective and not the other way round.


----------



## LilianaB

Hello, Francis. Yes, I have one example from the Russian forum. Употревляемый and употребительный. Apparently the first participle, which is considered a participle cannot take a superlative form, as opposed to the other one which is considered an adjective only.    

Употревляемый is an a participle.

Yпотребительный is an adjective (according to some people -- it may not be 100% true, this is just based on opinions of some knowledgeable people in the Russian forum, but I really trust them) 

I know that _past passive participles_ are basically _verbal adjectives_. I just got confused myself when I found out that there was anther classification.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, thank you, Berndf. In Slavic languages, in Russian at least there are some participles which cannot be used in the superlative form, as adjectives could, according to grammatical rules. In informal speech many people use them in the superlative as well, just as regular adjectives. I always thought that some participles were basically verbal adjectives, but apparently some verbal adjectives are just classified as adjectives, in such languages as Russian. There are different types of participles as well, which are not adjectives, but have a form and function more of an adverb, in Baltic languages at least. In Russian, too. Why can some of them appear in the superlative while the other participles cannot? I am not referring to participles which function as adverbs.

How do you classify such words as _edible_, _drinkable_? Are they pure adjectives? They come from verbs in a sense. Also words like _visual_, _performing_ (as in _performing arts_). If this is getting away from the topic of Slavic languages, you could adjust the thread to _in_ _Slavic_ and _Other Languages_. This looks like it  is something really interesting. Thank you.


----------



## Perseas

LilianaB said:


> How do you classify such words as _edible_, _drinkable_? Are they pure adjectives? They come from verbs in a sense. Also words like _visual_, _performing_ (as in _performing arts_)


Not all verbal adjectives are participles but participles are verbal adjectives. *
edible, drinkable *are verbal adjectives having the meaning of "being able" (drinkable water : water that can be drunk). _*visual*_ is adjective and _*performing*_ is participle.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you, Perseas. What is the basis of such categorization,  if you know, that _drinking water_ would have a participle as a part of its phrase, whereas _drinkable_ will just be an adjective. Is it only related to the suffix, characteristic of adjectives, or something more complex?


----------



## Perseas

*Particip*les *particip*ate in two functions, i.e. they behave both as verbs and as adjectives. E.g.(1)_reading books is a nice hobby_: here the participle behaves as verb. (2)_Japenese have difficult writing systems_: here it behaves as adjective. As to "-able" cases, they only function as adjectives of nouns, although their meaning can be rendered with the use of a verb. "drinkable water-->water that can be drunk"."


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> Thank you, Perseas. What is the basis of such categorization,  if you know, that _drinking water_ would have a participle as a part of its phrase, whereas _drinkable_ will just be an adjective. Is it only related to the suffix, characteristic of adjectives, or something more complex?


There is no participle in _drinking water_. In this construct, _drinking_ is a gerund, i.e. a verbal noun.


Perseas said:


> *Particip*les *particip*ate in two functions, i.e. they behave both as verbs and as adjectives. E.g.(1)_reading books is a nice hobby_: here the participle behaves as verb. (2)_Japenese have difficult writing systems_: here it behaves as adjective. As to "-able" cases, they only function as adjectives of nouns, although their meaning can be rendered with the use of a verb. "drinkable water-->water that can be drunk"."


The same applies to _reading in __reading books is a nice hobby._


----------



## LilianaB

Hello, Berndf. I meant _drinking water_ -- water that people drink, not the act of drinking, so I think it is a present participle.
_Reading books_ includes a gerund.


----------



## Perseas

berndf said:


> There is no participle in _drinking water_. In this construct, _drinking_ is a gerund, i.e. a verbal noun.
> The same applies to _reading in __reading books is a nice hobby._


You are right, berndf; however I was obviously influenced by that:

_
English verbs have two participles:

_

_called variously the present, active, imperfect, or progressive participle, it is identical in form to the gerund; the term present participle is sometimes used to include the gerund. The term gerund-participle is also used. _


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> Hello, Berndf. I meant _drinking water_ -- water that people drink, not the act of drinking, so I think it is a present participle.
> _Reading books_ includes a gerund.


In _a drinking man_, _drinking _is a present participle because _the man drinks _and that is what an attributively used present participle means: it expresses that the referent of the attributed noun performs the action/has the state which the verb describes. So, in _drinking water_, what das the water drink?


----------



## LilianaB

Another problem which seems to appear is that if we assume that participles do not have various intensity degrees, the superlative form for example, English seems to defy this rule. We can say: _the most talked about subject_, unless this is an eclipse created form _the subject most often talked about_, where _often_ is dropped. If we further assume that adjectives have various degrees, I think there are some that don't. _Visual arts exhibition_ -- we cannot say: _the most visual arts exhibition_.


----------



## LilianaB

_Drinking water_ is water that people drink or that is _meant for drinking _as opposed to _washing only_, for example. I think it is still a participle, even though the water does not perform the action.


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> _Drinking water_ is water that people drink or that is _meant for drinking _as opposed to _washing only_, for example. I think it is still a participle, even though the water does not perform the action.


No it is not. English has only a present active and a past passive participle. There is simply no present or future participle with passive meaning (_water to be drunk_).

_Drinking_ in _meant for drinking _is also a Gerund (_for_ needs a noun).


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you. Yes, I understand now what you mean. Yes, it is a gerund acting as a noun complement, this is why it does not go through gradation. It just looks like a participle. It is a similar construction as _community college_.

Going back to Slavic languages, and more precisely Russian, there is a word _*зрительный *(зал_ for example) where _зрительный_ is an adjective, yet it does not have any degrees of intensity, although its form is similar to the word mentioned earlier _yпотребительный_ which is also an adjective in contrast to a similar word _yпотревляемый_, which is a participle. _Yпотребительный_, as an adjective has different degrees of intensity (I mean three), whereas _yпотревляемый_ does not according to grammar, however, people use it in different degrees in ordinary speech.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> Yes, the pres. ppl. (characterized by _-nt-_ in Latin) and the gerund/gerundive (characterized by _-nd-_ in Latin) merged in French. At one development stage of language, French once has final obstruent devoicing (that's why we have_ positi*f*_ in masculine but _positi*v*e_ in feminine). At that time the uninflected gerund/gerundive (_-nd_) must have become indistinguishable from an uninflected participle (_-nt_). This merger is the historical reason for the peculiar behaviour of the modern present participle.



-In French the gerund has "en" preceding it:
En intéressant un peu plus les élèves ils apprendront...  
-The present participle replaces relative clauses:
C'est une question intéressant professeurs et élèves  (this usage doesn't exist in Spanish)
-The verbal adjective modifies a noun and agrees:
C'est une question intéressante pour les élèves.

Would be interesting to see which of these exist in Slavic languages.



> There is no participle in drinking water. In this construct, drinking is a gerund, i.e. a verbal noun.


In America in this strange context "drinking water" (maybe to be seen as a set phrase), "drinking" is used as an adjective meaning "potable", "able to be drunk".


----------



## LilianaB

Hello, Merquiades. Unfortunately French is the language I probably understand the least out of all Indo-European languages. If you could somehow translate the sentences into English that might help to figure out what belongs where and whether there are similar constructions in Slavic languages. It is up to you, of course, and I am not even sure if this would make any sense. I have heard somewhere that French adjectives behave differently if they precede a noun as opposed to when they appear after a verb. Is that so? Adjectives are really much more complex than I thought.


----------



## merquiades

LilianaB said:


> Hello, Merquiades. Unfortunately French is the language I probably understand the least out of all Indo-European languages. If you could somehow translate the sentences into English that might help to figure out what belongs where and whether there are similar constructions in Slavic languages. It is up to you, of course, and I am not even sure if this would make any sense. I have heard somewhere that French adjectives behave differently if they precede a noun as opposed to when they appear after a verb. Is that so? Adjectives are really much more complex than I thought.



Sorry Liliana.  Here are some translations.
-In French the gerund has "en" preceding it:
En intéressant un peu plus les élèves ils apprendront... 
(In/by) Interesting the students a bit more they will learn....
-The present participle replaces relative clauses:
C'est une question intéressant professeurs et élèves (this usage doesn't exist in Spanish)
It's a question interesting teachers and students (that interests)
-The verbal adjective modifies a noun and agrees:
C'est une question intéressante pour les élèves.
It's an interesting question for the students.

Yes, in Romance languages adjectives preceding the noun are subjective and following the noun are objective.  It would be an interesting thread to open.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you, Marquiades. I really have to think about it.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> -The present participle replaces relative clauses:
> C'est une question intéressant professeurs et élèves (this usage doesn't exist in Spanish)
> -The verbal adjective modifies a noun and agrees:
> C'est une question intéressante pour les élèves.


That is roughly what I explained before. Then Fancisgranada surmised that what we call present participles today developed out of gerund clauses and what we call verbal adjectives today out of the present participle. And I confirmed this.


merquiades said:


> -In French the gerund has "en" preceding it:
> En intéressant un peu plus les élèves ils apprendront...


I don't think French has a gerund nor is the term used in modern French grammar. The name of this adverbial form is borrowed from another Latin term, the _gerundive_ which is a future passive participle while the French _gérondif _has active meaning. 


merquiades said:


> In America in this strange context "drinking water" (maybe to be seen as a set phrase), "drinking" is used as an adjective meaning "potable", "able to be drunk".


Not so strange. <Gerund> + <noun> is a compound noun, like _love potion, toothpaste, boathouse, etc_. The general meaning is <noun> _for_ <gerund>; a _writing pen_ is a _pen for writing_, a _living room_ is a _room for living_, etc. ... And _drinking water_ is _water for drinking_.

Sometimes you have identically looking forms <gerund> + <noun> and <present participle> + <noun> but with different meanings: A _racing car _(gerund) is a car based for racing, a _racing car _(present participle) is a car (not necessarily a racing car) engaged in a race.

In spoken language, <adjective> + <noun> and compound nouns are differentiated by stress. A compound noun is stressed on the first part and adjective+noun on the noun, i.e. _*racing* car_ and _racing *car*_. And you say _*drinking* water_.


----------



## francisgranada

merquiades said:


> -In French the gerund has "en" preceding it:
> En intéressant un peu plus les élèves ils apprendront...
> -The present participle replaces relative clauses:
> C'est une question intéressant professeurs et élèves  (this usage doesn't exist in Spanish)
> -The verbal adjective modifies a noun and agrees:
> C'est une question intéressante pour les élèves.
> 
> Would be interesting to see which of these exist in Slavic languages


It's really interesting, but I have the feeling that at this point we have to decide what we are going to speak about ... A general discussion about all the possible participles in all the possible languages could lead to an endless and hardly "followable" discussion ... 

As to your question, generally, all of your examples can be clearly expressed in the Slavic languages, but there is a quite significant difference in the practical usage of the "original/common" Slavic participles depending on the conrete Slavic language.  


berndf said:


> ...  Not so strange. <Gerund> + <noun> is a compound noun, like _love potion, toothpaste, boathouse, etc_. The general meaning is <noun> _for_ <gerund>; a _writing pen_ is a _pen for writing_, a _living room_ is a _room for living_, etc. ... And _drinking water_ is _water for drinking_.


A bit strange  ... but I fully agree. For example, the "logic" of the system of participles is "a bit" different in Hungarian than in the IE languages, but the "human psycology" is necessarily the same (at least I think so ). I.e. expressions like "drinking water" we find also in Hungarian  in spite of the apparent "illogicity". E.g. _ivóvíz _(drinking water), written together (ivó=bibens, víz=aqua).


> In spoken language, <adjective> + <noun> and compound nouns are differentiated by stress. A compound noun is stressed on the first part and adjective+noun on the noun ...


It's valid also for my previous example (_ivóvíz_).


----------



## LilianaB

Hello, Francis. My original point of interest was why certain words that come from verbs in Slavic languages, especially, but not only, are called adjectives and obey the rules of adjectives in most cases, whereas other words that also come from verbs are called participles and don't follow certain rules that adjectives do, especially in formal language, since in informal contexts people still use them as adjectives, in Russian for example. Now, I think my question is whether for  a particular word which comes from a verb it is necessary to go through the stage of a noun, or through the medium of a noun, to become an adjective as opposed to pure participles. Basically what I mean is whether the parts of speech which come from verbs and behave as adjectives only, not as participles, came from nouns that came from verbs rather than directly from a verb.


----------



## Hulalessar

LilianaB said:


> Hello, Francis. My original point of interest was why certain words that come from verbs in Slavic languages, especially, but not only, are called adjectives and obey the rules of adjectives in most cases, whereas other words that also come from verbs are called participles and don't follow certain rules that adjectives do, especially in formal language, since in informal contexts people still use them as adjectives, in Russian for example. Now, I think my question is whether for  a particular word which comes from a verb it is necessary to go through the stage of a noun, or through the medium of a noun, to become an adjective as opposed to pure participles. Basically what I mean is whether the parts of speech which come from verbs and behave as adjectives only, not as participles, came from nouns that came from verbs rather than directly from a verb.



I think the problem here lies partly in trying to describe one language in terms of another and partly because in a given language a given form can have different functions. "Participle" implies a form derived from a verb, but just because it is derived from a verb does not mean it is a verb. They are a bit of a hybrid, or perhaps chameleon-like, at least in English. In Russian form and function are more closely related. If a word looks like an adjective it is an adjective and a word can only be an adjective if it looks like an adjective. In Russian you cannot oppose "participle" and "adjective" because a word can be both; "participle" really says no more than that the word derives from a verb, whilst adjective describes it form and function.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank, you Hulalessar. That makes sense. I just wonder if the same is true about other Slavic languages, that adjectives are classified as adjectives based mostly on their form. How would such words as _pisany_ and _napisany_ be classified in Polish, for example. _Prawo pisane _- _written law_ and _list napisany_ - _a letter that has been written_. The forms seem similar, however, the first one has a function more of an adjective than that of a past participle. We can say _list lepiej napisany_ - _a letter that has been written better _but we cannot say _lepiej pisane prawo._ _Better written law_. This may have something to do with the prefix as well, which indicates the perfective aspect in the second example, but _napisany_ is definitely a participle.


----------



## berndf

Hulalessar said:


> They are a bit of a hybrid, or perhaps chameleon-like


Yes, that's why they are called _*particip*les_, because the _*particip*ate_ in more than one word category.


----------



## Ben Jamin

LilianaB said:


> Hello, Francis. Yes, I have one example from the Russian forum. Употревляемый and употребительный. Apparently the first participle, which is considered a participle cannot take a superlative form, as opposed to the other one which is considered an adjective only.
> 
> Употревляемый is an a participle.
> 
> Yпотребительный is an adjective (according to some people -- it may not be 100% true, this is just based on opinions of some knowledgeable people in the Russian forum, but I really trust them)
> 
> I know that _past passive participles_ are basically _verbal adjectives_. I just got confused myself when I found out that there was anther classification.



Yпотребительный and all words ending in –ельный in Russian are adjectives formed from verbs. The parallel case in Polish are adjectives formed from verbs by the ending “–alny” (like ‘jadalny’, ‘widzialny’) even if their meaning is not the same as in Russian. What makes you think that they might be participles?


----------



## LilianaB

Some words which belong either to adjectives or to participles are tricky: _Niepisany_, as in _prawo niepisane_  and _nienapisany_ as in _list jeszcze nie napisany_ have the same ending, yet one is an adjective and the other one is a participle, or perhaps the first one is also a participle acting as a qualitative adjective. I think the same is true about Russian. This is what I have been trying to find out. I am interested how those _chameleon words_ are treated, especially in Slavic languages -- why some have degrees whereas others don't.


----------



## merquiades

Wouldn't these forms:  читая, торопясь  be considered true participles in Russian?  They are derived from verbs, are not adjectives and are impersonal


----------



## Hulalessar

merquiades said:


> Wouldn't these forms:  читая, торопясь  be considered true participles in Russian?  They are derived from verbs, are not adjectives and are impersonal



Those forms are _adverbial_ participles. In English adjectival and adverbial participles have the same form, but in Russian they do not. It is explained here: http://www.alphadictionary.com/rusgrammar/particip.html


----------



## LilianaB

merquiades said:


> Wouldn't these forms:  читая, торопясь  be considered true participles in Russian?  They are derived from verbs, are not adjectives and are impersonal



Hello, Merquiades. Yes, I think so. They play the role of adverbs though. I don't know the exact name for them in Russian, but they definitely should be considered participles. I am more concerned with the types which are adjective-participle borderline cases. Does anyone believe that certain participles should have degrees just like adjectives, or perhaps they do, but it is just not recognized by certain grammar books?


----------



## Hulalessar

LilianaB said:


> Does anyone believe that certain participles should have degrees just like adjectives, or perhaps they do, but it is just not recognized by certain grammar books?



But is it not the case that "adjective-participles" tend to describe ongoing states which cannot be subject to degrees?


----------



## LilianaB

I am not sure, Hulalessar. There are some Russian and Polish participles which go through gradation, at least in everyday speech. _Wyrosniety_ - grown, bardziej _wyrosniety_ - bigger (more grown). Polish examples. The same with the Russian participle _ynotreblyaemyj (yпотревляемый) _ - _used_. I would use it in three degree, and many people do in everyday speech, but apparently this is wrong.


----------



## Dhira Simha

LilianaB said:


> _yпотребительный_ which is also an adjective in contrast to a similar word _yпотребляемый_, which is a participle..


I would like to  draw your attention to the important fact which is often missed by non-native Russian speakers. Slavonic verb system, particularly Eastern Slavonic, is arranged around the fundamental notion of Aspect.  Aspect is pervasive and extends to participles. Of the pair you quoted above _yпотребительный  _comes from  _употребить _(perfective aspect)  while _yпотребляемый _from_ употреблять_ (imperfective). As a native Russian speaker I would perceive a perfective form as a finite so it is felt as a more "static" hence the perception of it primarily as an adjective. The imperfective _yпотребляемый _still has a notion of continued action and has a more distinct quality of a verb, therefore it is perceived as a participle. This is very schematic and more like a hint but if you are seriously working on this topic I would advise you to look at it in connection with Aspect.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you Dhira, so you basically think that both can really be classified as participles, from a certain point of view, except the one that comes from the verb in its perfective form is a finite form, or static, and this is why it is conventionally treated as an adjective. Is that right? I had a feeling that both are participles in way, that just differ as far as some features, such as aspect are concerned and this is probably why they behave differently in a sentence. Do you believe that both can have different degrees? Can both appear in the comparative and superlative degrees?


----------



## Dhira Simha

LilianaB said:


> so you basically think that both can really be classified as participles, from a certain point of view, except the one that comes from the verb in its perfective form is a finite form, or static, and this is why it is conventionally treated as an adjective. ?


I did not check it from the point of view of formal grammar but this is the intuitive feeling, yes. Aspectual  nuances are very subtle and often difficult to  describe so "treated" would not be the right word, I would say "perceived". Perfective participle is perceived more like an attribute (adjective) while the imperfective - more like action (verb).  How we classify them formally - is  a separate issue. With complex words like these the comparative would be periphrastic _более употребляемый_  and более _употребительный_.  The periphrastic superlatives will be:  _самый употребительный_ and _самый употребляемый_. Non-perephrastic: _употребительнее / __употребляемее _ but only _употребительнейший_  not _*употребляемейший_. There appears to be some logic here if we posit perfective as being more adjective in nature.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you Dirha. Would you say that the gradation of participles is grammatically acceptable in Russian, and it is not just an informal use of the language?


----------



## Dhira Simha

LilianaB said:


> Thank you Dirha. Would you say that the gradation of participles is grammatically acceptable in Russian, and it is not just an informal use of the language?


Sorry, this requires some extensive research for which I have no time. I just wanted to suggest a direction, which I would take if I had to do a similar study.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you. If you accidently found something about this in any very reliable grammar sources, please post it as a reference or a link.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Out of curiosity I had a brief look and it appears that my intuitive  move to  link it to aspect was right, however in formal grammar the attitude is contrary to what I suggested. Is is believed that  adjectives are formed from imperfective verbs. However the situation is not that straightforward and the main goal is  spelling as  adjectives are spelled with one  -н-  and  participles with -нн-. If you read Russian, you may want to check http://www.genon.ru/GetAnswer.aspx?qid=d1687a03-b71b-41c7-9bb8-f40a117abd46. Issues of spelling in Russian are not straightforward and some of the rules could have been invented artificially.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you Dhira. I though that adjectives which came form verbs had to be created from gerunds? This was just a theory. I never really fully examined it or read about it. What do you think?


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> I though that adjectives which came form verbs had to be created from gerunds?


I am confused. What makes you think that?


----------



## LilianaB

In Russian, it looks plausible, perhaps in some other Slavic languages as well. It is hard to explain why and it is only a theory, nothing else, that certain adjectives such as usable were created from use (a noun) rather than to use. Otherwise, why wouldn't they be just plain participles and not adjectives.  I thought that they could possibly come from verbal nouns.  Some other adjectives were also created from nouns, orange for example, guilty, etc.


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> In Russian, it looks plausible, perhaps in some other Slavic languages as well. It is hard to explain why and it is only a theory, nothing else, that certain adjectives such as usable were created from use (a noun) rather than to use.


Ah, there is a little terminological confusion. You mean from a _verbal noun_, not necessarily from a _gerunds_. Gerunds are a special class of verbal nouns. _Use_ is not a gerund.


LilianaB said:


> Otherwise, why wouldn't they be just plain participles and not adjectives. I thought that they could possibly come from verbal nouns. Some other adjectives were also created from nouns, orange for example, guilty, etc.


Well _verbal adjective_ is certainly the "painer" concept, _participle_ is the more complex concept of the two. _Participles_ are _verbal adjectives_ with special properties, like grammaticalization (e.g. in English use in continuous form or perfect tenses) and standardized meaning.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you, Berndf. Yes, I meant verbal nouns, not just gerunds. So  adjectives would be broader term than participles and adjectives could include certain types of participles? There are also some participles which behave like adverbs.


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> ...participles and adjectives could include certain types of participles? There are also some participles which behave like adverbs.


In most languages, it is not necessary to regard adverbial participles as a separate class of participles. They can simply be regarded as adverbial derivations from the corresponding adjective participle, e.g. _interestingly_ is derived from _interesting_ in the same way as_ slowly_ is derived from _slow_.

I believe this view can be applied to Russian as well, but my knowledge of Slavic grammar is very limited.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you, Berndf. I have to think about it.


----------



## francisgranada

The suffix -_able _(in English of French, and finally, of Latin origin) is a suffix used to form adjectives from _verbs_. There are other suffixes that may/might be used both for nouns and verbs. E.g. the suffix _-ed_ in English: "blue ey*ed*" ("normal" adjective) and "work*ed*" (past part.)

In the Slavic languages (I shall use the Slovak forms), the equivalent of -_able _is -_teľný _which is used only with _verbs_, but it can be decomposed to _-[t]eľ_ and _-ný_ (a "general" suffix of IE origin, used to form past.pass.participles and adjectives from nouns and verbs, as well). An example:

učiť - to teach (verb)
uče*ný* – taught (participle, [eventually] adjective)
uči*teľ* - teacher (noun)
uči*teľný*- teachable (adjective)

drevo - wood (noun)
dreve*n**ý* - wooden (adjective)

Now what I want to say, is that the _etymology_ (origin/history/development ...) of the adjectival (adverbial) suffixes is one question, and their _usage_ (or grammatical function) is another question. The latter is not necessarily derivable from the former.  Simply, the presence of a certain suffix (or morpheme) in a certain language does not automatically determine if it is a participle or not.


----------



## Dhira Simha

This is what  traditional Russian grammar says:

Participle is a verbal form which combines qualities of a verb and of an adjective. Participles denote a temporary attribute of an object connected with its involvement in an action (active or passive) while an adjective denotes a permanent quality of on object.

This is a chapter from a school textbook:

*Причастия и отглагольные прилагательные*​ От одного и того же глагола могут быть образованы как  формы причастий, так и отглагольные прилагательные. Если для  образования причастий и прилагательных используются разные по звуковому  (буквенному) составу суффиксы, различить их несложно: от глагола _гореть_ с помощью суффикса _-ящ-_ образуется причастие _горящий_, а с помощью суффикса _-юч-_ — прилагательное _горючий_.  Если же и причастия, и прилагательные образуются с помощью суффиксов,  имеющих одинаковый звуковой (буквенный) состав (например, _-енн-_ или _-им-_), различить их труднее.
 Однако различия между причастиями и прилагательными есть и в этом случае.
 1. Причастия обозначают временный признак предмета,  связанный с его участием (активным или пассивным) в действии, а  прилагательные обозначают постоянный признак предмета (например,  ‘возникший в результате осуществления действия’, ‘способный участвовать в  действии’), ср.:

_Она была воспитана в строгих правилах _(=_Ее воспитали в строгих правилах_) — причастие; 
_Она была воспитанна, образованна _(=_Она была воспитанная, образованная_).
 2. Слово в полной форме с суффиксом -_н-(-нн-), -ен-(-енн)_-  является отглагольным прилагательным, если оно образовано от глагола  НСВ и не имеет зависимых слов, и является причастием, если образовано от  глагола СВ и/или имеет зависимые слова, ср.:
_некошеные луга_ (прилагательное),
_не кошенные косой луга_ (причастие, т.к. есть зависимое слово),
_скошенные луга_ (причастие, т.к. СВ).
 3. Поскольку страдательные причастия настоящего времени могут быть только у переходных глаголов НСВ, слова с суффиксами -_им-, -ем_- являются прилагательными, если они образованы от глагола СВ или непереходного глагола:
_непромокаемые сапоги_ (прилагательное, т.к. глагол _промокать_ в значении ‘пропускать воду’ непереходный),
_непобедимая армия_ (прилагательное, т.к. глагол _победить_ СВ).
http://www.gramota.ru/book/litnevskaya.php?part4.htm#i7


----------



## Arath

Participles are words that combine the grammatical categories of two word classes (parts of speech). Just like a verb a participle has tense (present, past) and voice (active, passive). Just like an adjective it has gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and case (nominative, accusative).

All Indo-European languages have ways (usually by suffixes) to turn a member of one word class into another, but when this is done, a member of one word class is fully transformed into a member of another word class, it has the grammatical categories characteristic of only one word class.

_*употребля́емый *_is a participle because it has tense (present), voice (passive), gender (masculine), case (nominative).
*
yпотребительный *is an adjective because it only has gender (masculine) and case (nominative).


----------



## Dhira Simha

Sorry, probably not everybody can read Russian, however I would like to say that in many cases the same verbal form is considered  an adjective or a participle purely based of some scholastic norms.  

One rule says:

"Words in their full forms with suffixes -_н-(-нн-), -ен-(-енн)_-  are verbal adjectives if  formed from imperfective verbs and do not have  a dependent word but they are participles if formed from perfective verbs  and/or have a dependent word". 

In spelling  a participle is required to be spelled with double -нн- :

_некошеные луга_ (adjective, because imperfective), [unmowed fields]
_не кошенные косой луга_ (participle, because there is a dependent word), [unmowed by a scythe fields]
_скошенные луга_ (participle, because perfective) [mowed fields]

There is no phonetic difference between _-кошеный_ и _-кошенный_  and  even semantically the imperfective _некошеные луга_ " unmowed fields = fields on which grass was not cut" and _скошенные луга _"mowed fields = fields on which grass has been cut"  are close. Would you treat differently in English "mowed fields"   and "unmowed fields"?    In all these cases  the quality (state of the field) seems permanent and the difference which requires different spelling in Russian appears more scholastic than functional. But would you treat differently "unmowed by scythe fields" or "fields that have been mowed"  in English? Then, if we put the same expressions in the framework of some formalism like Lexical functional grammar or Role and reference grammar  would we treat these forms similarly  or not?

Another rule says that  present passive participles of verbs  with the suffix -им / -ем  should be considered  adjectives if formed from an intransitive verb:_ непромокаемые сапоги _[impermeable boots] but  remain participles if formed from transitive and imperfective verbs: _ употребляемый напиток_ [drink (which is) being consumed] while  _употребительный_ [consumable] is an adjective simply because it is perfective_._ Perhaps there is  a deep logic here because in English we would use  verb+ -able (impermeable boots) in the first case  and a  present passive participle in the other (drink (which is) being consumed).

It gets very complicated. Could be a good topic for a Phd  dissertation


----------



## LilianaB

Also negative forms of adjectives are spelled together with the suffix _не, _whereas participles are spelled separately. I think it is a general rule, unless there are some exceptions I missed that someone could point out.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Yes, this is correct, although many people  do not distinguish it. I sometimes make mistakes. I am still not sure whether I should write _нескошенные луга_ or _не скошенные луга_ or _нескошеные луга_.  What a shame! 
Off-topic, regarding the verb _косить_, саn you translate _ Косой косил косой косой  _?


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you Dhira. This is really tricky, sometimes. The phrase will be: A cross-eyed reaper was reaping with a crooked sickle. OT.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Wow! Labai gerai


----------



## berndf

Arath said:


> Participles are words that combine the grammatical categories of two word classes (parts of speech). Just like a verb a participle has tense (present, past) and voice (active, passive). Just like an adjective it has gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and case (nominative, accusative).


Unfortunately, this classification is not so clear-cut as it appears. E.g. the Latin gerundive is classified by some grammarians as a derived jussive verbal adjective and by others as a passive, future participle.


----------



## Arath

berndf said:


> Unfortunately, this classification is not so clear-cut as it appears. E.g. the Latin gerundive is classified by some grammarians as a derived jussive verbal adjective and by others as a passive, future participle.



In the Slavic languages, or at least in Bulgarian, there is no problem with this classification. In Bulgarian we have a small problem with the so-called present passive participle, because it's been relatively recently reintroduced into the language and there is a quite free variation in its formation, so it's mostly cassified as an adjective, although it has a passive meaning.


----------



## LiseR

Dhira Simha said:


> Yes, this is correct, although many people  do not distinguish it. I sometimes make mistakes. I am still not sure whether I should write _нескошенные луга_ or _не скошенные луга_ or _нескошеные луга_.  What a shame!
> Off-topic, regarding the verb _косить_, саn you translate _ Косой косил косой косой  _?



По-моему, правильно будет  "нескошенные луга", то бишь слитно. 
"Не" с причастиями и с прилагательными пишется раздельно, если есть противопоставление, например, не скошенные, а дикорастущие луга; не живая, а мёртвая природа.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Paldies, LiseR! It was more of a joke. I was fortunate to go to a school in USSR  and I know the rules but reading  today's Russian newspapers and site  I constantly come across so many mistakes that  I start thinking that maybe it is problem with me  You are right, about противопоставление.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Arath said:


> Participles are words that combine the grammatical  categories of two word classes (parts of speech). Just like a verb a  participle has tense (present, past) and voice (active, passive). Just  like an adjective it has gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and case  (nominative, accusative).



Good point!


----------



## LiseR

Dhira Simha said:


> Paldies, LiseR! It was more of a joke. I was fortunate to go to a school in USSR  and I know the rules but reading  today's Russian newspapers and site  I constantly come across so many mistakes that  I start thinking that maybe it is problem with me  You are right, about противопоставление.


 Спасибо взаимно!  I did not go to school in USSR and Russian we studied 3 hours/week, but I believe it's all the books I used to read (not only American writers, French, German, translated to Russian) - due to them, sometimes I write in Russian better than in my mother-tongue.


----------



## Dhira Simha

However, the question put in this thread was not as much about formal rules, some of which can well be  artificial in nature, but more about the deep internal logic. What is the point when  a participle  begins to function as an adjective and why? It becomes evident that the clue may lie in  such parameters as aspectuality and  transitivity/in-transitivity. The later is a more common feature in IE languages but Slavonic Aspect  has many unique features which may explain differences  in participle-adjective relations.


----------



## francisgranada

An example from Slovak (think for the speakers of Russian  understandable): 

Prečítaná kniha leží na stole (lit. "read book lies on table")
Kniha bola prečítaná (lit. "book was read")
Sčítaný človek (lit. "read man", the meaning is cca: "book-learned/lettered man")

(čítať - to read; kniha - book; človek - man/human being; leží - lies; na stole - on the table; s- pre- verbal prefixes)

In which of the three examples do you consider "čítaný/á" participle and/or adjective?


----------



## LilianaB

I would consider the one modifying _man_ an adjective. Only this one.  By the way, do you write participles with the negation suffix separately in Slovak?


----------



## francisgranada

LilianaB said:


> I would consider the one modifying _man_ an adjective. Only this one.  By the way, do you write participles with the negation suffix separately in Slovak?


Together: nečítať: nečítaný, neprečítaný, nesčítaný ....

The accent is always on the 1st syllable, so in these cases on "ne". 
"Ne" is pronounced as in Russian.


----------



## LilianaB

In Russian the suffix _ne_ is written separately form verbs, and so it is in Polish. In Polish, I am pretty sure, there was a rule that partiples with _nie_ should be written separately whereas, adjectives should be written together. Recently I have seen all adjectives and participles spelled together with _nie_, so I am not really sure anymore whether the grammar has changed, or people started ignoring the distinction between adjectives and participles.


----------



## Dhira Simha

LilianaB said:


> I would consider the one modifying _man_ an adjective. Only this one.  By the way, do you write participles with the negation suffix separately in Slovak?


 I would agree with you, however since  there is no distinction in spelling, accentuation and the way the negative particle is joined, this division is purely scholastic while in Russian it has a practical application. As for  _не_ spelling I also noticed that  in modern Russian  there is a growing confusion of how to spell it and the tendency seems to  be to write it separately in all cases.  The reasons is that the formal rules are very complicated (11 rules!). This is how they are defined in the authoritative Rozental' grammar:http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/38.htm#з_04


----------



## Ben Jamin

Dhira Simha said:


> I would agree with you, however since  there is no distinction in spelling, accentuation and the way the negative particle is joined, this division is purely scholastic while in Russian it has a practical application. As for  _не_ spelling I also noticed that  in modern Russian  there is a growing confusion of how to spell it and the tendency seems to  be to write it separately in all cases.  The reasons is that the formal rules are very complicated (11 rules!). This is how they are defined in the authoritative Rozental' grammar:http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/38.htm#%D0%B7_04



What’s so complicated about those rules? I am not very fluent in Russian, but they feel quite intuitive for me.


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> Going back to Slavic languages, and more precisely Russian, there is a word _*зрительный *(зал_ for example) where _зрительный_ is an adjective, yet it does not have any degrees of intensity, although its form is similar to the word mentioned earlier _yпотребительный_ which is also an adjective



Зрительный and употребительный are really adjectives, however the former being relative adjective, and the latter - qualitative. That is why зрительный cannot have comparative forms, while употребительный - can. In Russian language suffixes are far not always good marks of the grammatical categories, cf.: крас*н*ый - qualitative adjective (краснее ), колбас*н*ый - relative adjective (колбаснее ).


----------



## Maroseika

Ben Jamin said:


> What’s so complicated about those rules? I am not very fluent in Russian, but they feel quite intuitive for me.



And still this is the nightmare of any schoolchild going to pass his Russian test or exam. Too many not evident cases.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you Maroseika. I know that gradation has to do with the type of adjectives. I was just wondering why certain participles cannot go through gradation according to grammatical rules, though people used them in all three degrees in informal speech. Are there also any instances that the negation suffix is spelled separately from the participle in Russian?

Added: I think I found the answer to the gradation question myself -- it just came to my mind. With participles it should be that the adverb modifying the  participle undergoes gradation. _More often used_, for example -- not _more_ _used_. The same would be true in Russian.


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> I was just wondering why certain participles cannot go through gradation according to grammatical rules, though people used them in all three degrees in informal speech.


Just because sometimes words are used not like in the dictionaries, and in this sense they are used in strict accordance with "natural" grammar. Even in my example I can use the form колбаснее: Мой бутерброд колбаснее, чем твой (meaning mine has more sausage than yours). In this case we presume колбасный is qualitative adjective - not always, but only once, now, occasionally. The same occures with intransitive verbs, occasionally used like transitive ("У меня есть мысль, и я ее думаю").




> Are there also any instances that the negation suffix is spelled separately from the participle in Russian?


Sure, there are.


> Added: I think I found the answer to the gradation question myself -- it just came to my mind. With participles it should be that the adverb modifying the  participle undergoes gradation. _More often used_, for example -- not _more_ _used_. The same would be true in Russian.


Your guess would be more clear if illustrated with Russian example.


----------

