Learn Russian

As people have already said, this construction is theoretically possible, but very artificial - no one ever talks or even writes this way. If I were writing this, I would do it thus:

Проходя мимо кафе, я заметил (better than замечаю, unless you have some special reason to use present tense), что мальчик, сидящий в углу, читает одну из моих любимых книг.

On the other hand, if I were speaking, it would sound like this:

Я проходил мимо кафе. Я заметил в углу мальчика, который читал книгу - одну из моих любимых.

In oral speech people tend to avoid participles and subject clauses altogether.

From:

>In oral speech people tend to avoid participles and subject clauses altogether.

Not only that -- even in my high school days back in the 1970s I was taught that participles (and subject clauses) are strictly a feature of written Russian, not oral speech at all. So, people not just avoid that -- this is what distinguishes written Russian.
Which does not mean that one has to overemploy participles in written Russian; and in the example given by the original poster, participles are certainly overemployed.

From:

dudeapathy.livejournal.com

This was exactly my fear. As another poster pointed out, this is "over-participled". Thanks for all your feedback! It really helps me understand how to use these better. :)

From:

Oh no, you probably had a bad teacher, since there isn't written or spoken Russian, there are a bad and well Russian. Well Russian uses all language constructions as well, but it don't simplify nor complicate your speech, so you're well and easily understandable by your audience.
This phrase is ok when you're telling a story in it's development for an auditory. If you break it on several sentences, it will sound as speech for dumbers.

From:

>This phrase is ok when you're telling a story

This sentence is definitely not OK, under no circumstances. I suppose you accept the word of a mass media editor with 15 years of experience without further explanations.
Actually, there IS a sheer difference between written styles of Russian (книжный стиль, научный стиль, деловой стиль) and oral speech (not only colloquial, but also stylistically neutral speech.) Too bad you apparently have not heard about that.

From:

Believe me, I prefer a book written in well Russian rather a paper written by a mass media editor, especially if he's with 15 years of experience. (Hint: his experience is in mass-media, not in Russian, indeed).

From:

You are very wrong about "well Russian". There are styles for oral speech and for written speech, and they differ. Go find a good book about Russian stylistics and read it. I bet you will find a lot of new (to you) and interesting information there.

From:

Common, there is an offensive Russian, and язык Элочки Людоедовой too, but open any manual for universities and you'll see no division onto written or spoken Russian.

From:

I would recommend you not to mess with community maintainers, but finally go and read a good book yourself. I have studied Russian stylistics at Moscow State with the late Dr. Ditmar Rosenthal, if this name rings any bell to you, and I assure you I have read more sources on the subject than you would even imagine existed. So, you better stop this pointless discussion and read something that would provide you with serious arguments.

From:

Excellent, the book D.Rosenthal and all, "Modern Russian" is my favorite, look into it, and you'll see no division onto written and spoken Russian. One citation from this book:
Для современного развития русского языка характерно взаимовлияние и взаимопроникновение стилей, а это способствует перемещению лексических средств (одновременно с другими языковыми элементами) из одного стиля в другой.

From:

Don't try to lead aside -- go directly to the books I mention. No sidetracks, we are speaking participles here, not just styles. So, just straight to business:
Голуб, chapter 5.5.5.2 --

ср.: Страницы, прочитанные мною... - Страницы, которые я прочитал... - первая форма предпочтительнее в книжных стилях.

В современном русском языке причастия широко используются в научном стиле...

«Книжность» причастий объясняется их историей: они восходят к старославянскому языку и поэтому издавна были принадлежностью письменной речи. В поэзии XVIII в. обилие причастий было отличительной чертой «высокого штиля».

Адъективированные причастия, получившие метафорическое значение, обычно становятся языковыми тропами: кричащие противоречия, немеркнущая слава, блестящий успех, изысканные блюда, ограниченный человек. Их экспрессивная окраска привлекает внимание писателей и публицистов, однако выразительные возможности таких причастий, как всяких образных средств, получивших относительно устойчивый характер, не следует переоценивать...Сфера широкого образного использования адъективированных причастий - публицистический стиль.

And, finally, exactly my point from my first comment to the original post:
Употребление причастий требует особого внимания, так как случаи отклонения от нормы в образовании и использовании в речи этих отглагольных форм встречаются довольно часто.

From:

Stop, why you throw out Dr.Rosenthal option ? Is you provide him as an authority. Is that is because he contradicts you believes ?

I have one another citation for you:
Стилистическая окраска слова указывает на возможность использования его в том или ином функциональном стиле (в сочетании с общеупотребительной, нейтральной лексикой). Однако это не значит, что функциональная закрепленность слов за определенным стилем исключает их употребление в других стилях.

And there are no any style bindings for participles in Dr.Rosenthal's manual mentioned above. Even more, Dr. Rosenthal mentioned, that there are no any two different dictionaries of Russian with equal stylistic markup for same words.

From:

Come on. Are you kidding me or just playing with the quotations, unable to admit that you do not know the subject properly? Want me to throw in some Rosenthal? There you go:

Rosenthal, "Литературное редактирование текста", chapter 69:

Причастные обороты используются для замены синонимичных придаточных определительных предложений в ряде случаев:
1) если высказывание имеет книжный характер, [...]
2) если в сложном предложении повторяется союзное слово который, в частности при последовательном подчинении придаточных предложений, [...]
3) если нужно устранить двузначность, связанную с возможной различной соотнесенностью союзного слова который, [...]
4) если высказыванию придается определенная стилистическими соображениями краткость, [...]
Используя преимущества причастного оборота, следует вместе с тем учитывать такой недостаток причастий, как их неблагозвучие в случае скопления[...]

Ibid., chapter 199:

[...]при деепричастии или причастии, в связи с книжным характером этих форм,[...]

From:

No, it's you confuse in details: you have cited an editorship manual, while my citations were from manual of Modern Russian for universities by same author, sic!

From:

You are stubborn, but I am much worse, believe me.

Rosenthal, Современный русский язык -- the very book you claim to know so well.

Chapter 15. Лексика межстилевая и функционально закрепленная, стилистически нейтральная и экспрессивно окрашенная (http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook107/01/part-007.htm#i842). Read it through, and then show me where exactly Rosenthal claimed that the stylistically charged lexemas tend to drift from one style to another. I'd say he wrote quite the opposite.

Golub, Русский язык и культура речи (another university textbook)

Chapter 1.2.2. Книжные стили русского языка (http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook083/01/part-003.htm#i460)
Морфология книжных стилей характеризуется явным предпочтением именам существительным перед глагольными формами; частым употреблением причастий и деепричастий; использованием количественных и порядковых числительных при почти полном отсутствии собирательных; избирательным отношением к местоимениям (отказом от личных и большинства неопределенных местоимений и употреблением относительных, указательных).

From:

You have confused again, - you provided the link to Modern Russian by N. S. Valgina, not by D. Rosenthal...

From:

Oh come on. This thing, Golub-Telenkova, on your picture -- it's not even a university textbook (университетский учебник) -- it is a DISTANCE EDUCATION HANDBOOK! (учебное пособие для студентов заочного обучения). Condensed crap :)

What I quote is the university textbook (http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook107/01/about.htm) - Valgina, Rosenthal, Fomina: Современный русский язык --- which is Nina Valgina's 2000s edition of Rosenthal's classic 1980s textbook.

From:

Your textbook even have no recommendation as manual and it printed not by Высшая школа, nor by Русский Язык publishing house :)

From:

Nonsense. Up to the 5th edition, Valgina-Rosenthal textbook WAS in Высшая школа. What's scanned by that online library I gave links to, was the 2002 reprint by Логос which inherited the former Университетская книга brand. FYI, Логос has full accreditation and not only "approved," but downright "recommended" label from the Ministry of Education for New University Library and 21th Century Textbooks series. Know what I mean?

:)

From:

Every recommended book must have appropriate notice on it, whatever accreditation the publishing house have.

From:

"common"? common what? it is an adjective, you know, and therefore requires a noun.
And who is "Элочка Людоедова"? There is no such character in Russian literature. Looks like you have no idea yourself what you are talking about.

From:

It looks like it's "Элочка Людоедова" (such an illiterate dork!) herself. We both forgot a nice rule, FEED NO TROLLS. Let's stop at this point, we obviously cannot explain things to somebody who is not listening :)

From:

Please note that "well Russian" can be roughly translated as "колодезный русский" (and not as "good Russian" which you probably attempted to put in it.)
I prefer anything to колодезный русский, you know :)

As of my personal experience, I can assure you it is exactly in Russian, as I am a writing editor by profession (and also a writer who has four published books.) Please do not misguide people in an educational community with weird concepts.

From:

Just FYI:
1. "well" here = is healthy and not not ill.
2. a professional who study a language called linguist, not an editor. Good educated linguist should never confuse that different things.

From:

Again, please stop a. pointless flame and b. misinterprete obvious things. Copy editing, media editing, media writing, and other kinds of applicable linguistics all include a very good deal of language study, especially at Moscow State; the Russian Stylistics dept. (Dr. Rosenthal's) - кафедра стилистики русского языка - is regarded as the core element of education at Moscow State's School of Journalism. Sorry you obviously didn't know such basic things. It would be really nice if you distract from the meaningless stuff you write here for the sake of a good book about Russian stylistics. I especially recommend the following two, Д.Э.Розенталь "Практическая стилистика русского языка" (М., 1997) and И.Б.Голуб "Стилистика русского языка" (same year and location) -- the classic textbooks on the subject. Both easy to get through University bookstores or Akademkniga throughout the city.

From:

Sorry, but Philological Faculty and Faculty of Journalism are different faculties at Moscow State, so forcing your education in journalism as an authority in linguistic dispute is so ridiculous. You should started with citation from linguists.

From:

I should have started with quotations from the most advanced scholar on the subject, who happened to teach not at the Philology School, but at the School of Journalism -- where the Russian Stylistics department was, back in the 1980s when I studied there, the foremost school in this exact field. Philology at that time had strong Romance-Germanic and Slavic Studies departments, but Russian as Foreign and expecially Modern Russian departments were relatively weak there. It's like physics: if you wanted to be in the topmost school, you would never enter Moscow State's Physics School, but PhisTech or Physics Engineering (MIFI) instead.

From:

superslayer18.livejournal.com

I don't think you would make something passive AND accusative, I think it's usually one or the other. Everyone else has already put in better input than I would have ^_^

From: