(3) a. "On the table next to the bed, there were stolen jewels." [correct] b. *""On the table next to the bed, there were snatched jewels." [somewhat permissible but not good syntax] c. "On the table next to the bed, there were jewels that had been snatched from the store." [correct] d. "On the table next to the bed, there were snatched jewels from several department stores he had visited (at nighttime) recently." [correct] Here, the same principals apply, though it is not easy to narrow them down exactly. "Stolen jewels" can be used because it is apparently to the reader of what the meaning is; those are jewels that have been stolen. Essentially, stolen is more passive of an modifier than snatched, and more obviously connected--everyone thinks of "stolen jewels", since thieves like to steal small, highly valuable items. Whereas, "snatched" adds a sort of anticipation and ambiguity, making the reader confused--snatched from where? See my "3d" example sentence for a solution that preserves the original, but takes away the anticipation and ambiguity, while leaving some gramatically correct surprise. Maybe a professional will come along and reduce my explanation to a simple sentence; otherwise, this is a bit of a game, all languages evolve in this manner, with a subjective logic that makes perfect sense in context (of a native speaker) but confusing to an outsider.

So the reader is left confused, "there killed a king", killed WHAT? Was the King killed, or did he kill someone else? Whereas, "ruled" is more obvious, a king is not ruled by others, but rules others. 2a) Off the icy coast of Tierra del Fuego, there appeared a ship. [Correct] 2b) Off the icy coast of Tierra del Fuego, there disappeared a ship. [incorrect], but 2c) "Off the icy coast of Tierra del Fuego, a ship suddenly disappeared into the waves". [correct] The first is correct, perhaps because it is complete, and the verb "appeared" is both active and a normal, predicable occurrence of the ship. But, in 2b, the "there disappeared a ship" sounds incorrect because it is surprising, or shocking to the reader, because it does not have sufficient information; disappeared to where? We could also ask, "appeared from where?" But those are not the same situations; it is a cause and effect, logical relationship. For the ship to disappear, it must have first been present; "there disappeared" reverses the order of it, confusing the reader. By changing the order, as I did in 2c, it sounds correct again. "A ship suddenly disappeared . . ." works because first we read "A Ship" and only then, that it is disappeared. (I added some extra words to make it read more realistically).

This is very subtle, which explains why nobody else has answered. It has to do with the logical connection between noun and verb, which is made "narrower" due to the syntax of these phrases. The "trick" is that your sentences are too short, that is, they are incomplete, not being appropriate for written or spoken English, making the differences between the (a) and (b) verbs seem less apparent. Nobody says, ""There ruled a King" by itself, it does not make sense. It does not have sufficient information. If we rewrite the sentences to be correct, then (more or less) the differences can be sensed; the (a) verbs seem to be more logically connected and "expected", and "complete", compared to the (b) verbs, which seem "incomplete". Let me rewrite them to be proper English, the way it would be actually used: 1) "Between the two rivers, in lands otherwise unknown, there ruled a King." [correct] or "Between the two rivers, in lands otherwise unknown, there lived a King." [correct] or "Between the two rivers, in lands otherwise unknown, there reigned a King." [correct] 2) "Between the two rivers, in lands otherwise unknown, there complained a King." [incorrect]. or "Between the two rivers, in lands otherwise unknown, there loved a King." [incorrect]. or "Between the two rivers, in lands otherwise unknown, there killed a King." [incorrect]. Why? The (a) verbs strike me as more "expected", logically connected, and complete the sentence correctly. The (b) verbs are confusing. For one thing, "complained" is not a kingly verb; Kings are not known for complaining, so the verb does not match the noun. This makes it more striking to the reader and harder to understand; if we said, "the king complained" it would be easy to understand. But the syntax of the sentences prevents that, making things more complex. Connected to this reason, is another, ambiguity; "there killed a King" is confusing; it could mean the King killed someone: "there killed a King his advisor".

Love

Sounds like a homophonic error in transcription. "however it looks like it now works"?

Здравствуйте The "to" is part of the infinitive "to participate" and not part of "made" . The "to" after "made" is also needed logically to separate the noun from verb; otherwise, it would mean "Carl was made [a] participate"; that is, Carl was turned into a "participate". Which does not make sense. The second question, you were correct, it is "works". The test was using some kind of regional dialect where they interpret "crew" to mean one unified (singular) body; still, the test maker is incorrect, a crew by definition has multiple members, and should be considered plural.

Sounds like that is from some New York novel of the 1950's; most Americans would not be able to understand it due to the complexity and non-standard slang or regional words, or actually foreign (Yiddish) words. "Brusque as hell", the word is really French, but means "in a hurry", or "under great time pressure while being inconsiderate of others" "As hell" is idiom an that means "very". So "very hurriedly". Bialystoker may be an idiosyncrasy of that particular writer, and not general English; it probably means a person from the town of Biolystok, a place in Eastern Europe. Old means aged, or perhaps just someone known for a long time. "Shoving through the crowds" is standard English for pushing into a group of people to get through.