1. Principles of classification of complex sentences.

2. Complicated sentences of an undivided structure (or single-membered).

3. Complex sentences of a dissected structure (or binomial).

1. In Russian syntactic science, at different times, three principles for the classification of complex sentences were put forward.

1. Logical-grammatical (or semantic) principle. Built on the principle of likening a complex sentence to a simple one, and subordinate parts to members of a simple sentence, this classification of complex sentences developed by the middle of the 19th century; in its creation, the role of Fyodor Ivanovich Buslaev is especially great, who in his work “The Experience of the Historical Grammar of the Russian Language” (1858) distinguishes subject, predicate, additional, attributive and adverbial clauses, and classifies the latter into subordinate places, time, mode of action, measure and accounts, reasons, grounds, goals, conditions, etc.

The disadvantage of this classification is that, firstly, it does not cover all the available types of subordinate clauses, for example, it cannot include subordinate consequences, comparisons, attachments; secondly, very colorful and heterogeneous complex sentences are included in one category; thirdly, complex sentences that are homogeneous in semantics and structure belong to different types, for example, It was so hot that it was difficult to breathe (subordinate measure and counts), It was so hot that it was difficult to breathe (subordinate attributive), and Heat was such that it was difficult to breathe (subordinate predicate), although the structural and semantic homogeneity of these sentences is obvious.

2. Formal-grammatical principle. This principle formed the basis for the classification of complex sentences according to the means of communication of the main and subordinate parts. This classification was put forward by A.M. Peshkovsky, M.N. Peterson, L.A. Bulakhovsky, A.B. Shapiro. In accordance with the principle underlying this classification, there are two main types of complex sentences: sentences with allied words (relative subordination) and sentences with unions (allied subordination); and the division within these types is based on the semantics of conjunctions and allied words. In other words, the formal classification was reduced to the analysis not of sentences, but of conjunctions and allied words.

3. Structural-semantic principle. According to this principle, the classification of complex sentences (SPP – further) is based on establishing the nature of the relationship between the main and subordinate parts . The beginning of this classification was laid in the work of the Kazan scientist V.A. Bogoroditsky “The General Course of Russian Grammar” (1904), where he noted that “when studying subordinate clauses, one must keep in mind: 1) what it refers to; 2) what formal words are used…; 3) what semantic shades in each case belong to the subordinate clauses themselves (and not to this or that member of the main clause). Embodying the principles of the structural-semantic approach to a complex sentence, N.S. Pospelov, V.A. Beloshapkova (S.G. Ilyenko, V.I. Kodukhov, L.Yu. Maksimov, etc.) distinguish two main types of NGN: single-term (undivided), in which the subordinate part refers to a word or phrase in the main one, and two-membered (dissected), where the subordinate part refers to the main one as a whole. In the process of analyzing the SPP of an undivided and dissected structure, V.A. Beloshapkova notes the main differences: 1) undivided sentences are characterized by the relation of the subordinate clause to one word of the main one, for divided sentences – to the entire main part as a whole or, what is the same, to the predicate of the main part as its grammatical center; (syntactic) unions and allied words, in dissected – semantic unions; 3) the nature of the connection: in undivided sentences, the connection is predictive (since the word in the main part, to which the subordinate clause refers, requires “continuation of the statement”), for example: I want to write how the great miracle of creation is performed again (Yu. Levitansky), in dismembered – an unpredictable connection, for example: In the depths of her soul, a little woman is happy, like all people in love or generally devoted to some passionate dream (I.A. Bunin); If I didn’t warm you in your heart, if I didn’t caress you, I wouldn’t have said these words to you for anything (A. Fet), It’s sweet for me to be hypocritical with myself, although I have long forgotten about everything else (A. Fet).

The structural-semantic classification of complex sentences pays attention to the type of subordinating connection of parts, highlighting the verbal, determinant and correlation connection.

A verbal subordinating connection is similar to the connection between a word and the word form that propagates it as part of a phrase. Cf.: What did you say? – He said that he was leaving / about leaving.

The determinant connection is similar to the connection between the word form, which is the predicative center of the sentence, and its optional distributor in the composition of a simple sentence. Wed: When can I visit you? – Come to me when you finish work / at the end of work.

Correlation has no analogues in a phrase and a simple sentence. It is built with the participation of anaphoric elements, which can be in the main and subordinate parts ( He who is cheerful, he laughs ) or only in the main part ( He was so funny that everyone laughed ), or only in the subordinate part ( He is diligently engaged in what pleases me ). In the presence of anaphoric elements in the main part, the structure of complex sentences is carried out according to the principle of replacing a lexically empty pronominal word in the main sentence, requiring specification of the content of that member of the main sentence, which is formally designated by this pronoun.

Among the undivided complex sentences, the following sentences stand out: 1) explanatory; 2) substantive-determinative; 3) comparative; 4) pronominal-correlative.

Among the dissected compound sentences, determinant (adverbial) sentences (causes, consequences, conditions, goals, concessions, time, comparisons, comparisons) and relatively-connective sentences are distinguished.

In explanatory and substantive-defining sentences, a verbal connection is realized, in pronominal-correlative and relative-connective sentences – a correlative connection, in determinant sentences – a determinant connection.

So, a complex sentence consists of two unequal predicative units: the main PU and the subordinate PU. Communication and relations between them are carried out with the help of formal indicators – subordinating conjunctions, allied words and correlates.

2. In the SPP of an undivided structure, clauses spread the word as a lexical-morphological unit or phrase. Depending on the lexical and grammatical nature of the word to which the clause belongs (N.S. Pospelov and V.A. Beloshapkova), there are substantive-defining, comparative and explanatory types of clauses (the connection between the main and the clause is verbal) and pronominal -correlative type of subordinate clauses (correlation relationship). Syntactic (asemantic) unions and allied words expressed by relative pronouns act as means of communication in undivided NGN.

1. Consider the first type of SPP of an undivided structure – substantive-determinative . This type includes NGN, in which subordinate clauses extend the noun (with or without a demonstrative pronoun) of the main part, are attached by relative pronouns and express attributive (in the broad sense) relations.

Only allied words act as means of communication: which , which , whose , where , where , where , from, when , what .

According to semantics, two groups of substantive-defining sentences are distinguished:

1) definitive-distributive, for example: A doctor was invited to the patient, who immediately made a diagnosis ;

2) definitive-excretory, for example: The doctor who was last time was invited to the patient .

Allied words which , what , whose agree with the noun being defined in number and gender, but have their own case forms, which are determined by their syntactic function in the subordinate clause. And they are never definitions.

Various allied words show that the selection or distribution is carried out in various ways: by indicating the time ( when ), for example: 1) In Andersen’s complex biography, it is not easy to establish the time , 2) when he began to write his first charming fairy tales (K.G. .Paustovsky); place ( where ), for example: 1) Obviously, this was the place , 2) where the highway broke off over the river at the burned bridge (L.N. Tolstoy); direction ( where , from where ), for example: 1) She did not look back, but she clearly felt the abyss behind her, 2) where she was slipping more and more (Bykov); belonging ( whose ), for example: 1) The priest quickly went to the table, bowed to that rich young lady , 2) whose troika stood at the edge of the oak forest (I.A. Bunin); a qualitative characteristic ( which one ), for example: 1) I sort through the places in my memory, 2) which ones I saw, 1) and I am convinced, 3) that I saw little (K.G. Paustovsky).

If in attributive sentences the subordinate part is attached to a noun with a demonstrative pronoun in the main part and thereby highlights the object (called a noun), then in attributive-distributive clauses the subordinate part serves to report something new about the subject, therefore there is no before the noun in the main part and there cannot be a demonstrative pronoun, for example: 1) In one place we scared away several pairs of cranes , 2) which flew on with a sad cry (D.N. Mamin-Sibiryak).

2. Comparative sentences. In them, the subordinate part extends the comparative (comparative degree of an adjective, adverb or category of state) in the main part, giving a descriptive designation to one of the objects of comparison, for example: 1) Let’s not pretend to be wiser , 2) than we were in reality (M. Gallai) .

In comparative NGN, the subordinate part refers to the comparative degree of an adjective, adverb or category of state and is joined by conjunctions than , rather than , for example: 1) A young man received more from home, 2) than he should have expected (A.S. Pushkin).

The comparative form requires an obligatory indication of the object of comparison, which can be expressed by the gender case of a name or a subordinate clause: Is it because there is more truth in it than you would like? (M.Yu. Lermontov)

An analogue to a comparative can be words whose lexical meaning contains an indication of comparison ( different, different, differently, differently ), for example: 1) The hospital turned out to be completely different , 2) than Berlaga imagined it (Ilf and Petrov).

3. Explanatory sentences. If in the considered types of NGN the subordinate part spreads the word in the main as a part of speech , then in the NGN explanatory, the semantics of the spread word is important, which can be a verb (the main syntactic position of the explanatory clause with a verb), an abstract noun, a predicative (state category) with the semantic sphere ‘man – the world around’, that is, they express the semantics of speech, thoughts, assessments, feelings, expressions of will, perception, attitudes, etc. (in other words, speech, mental, cognitive, volitional, evaluative activity, intellectual or emotional state ( speak, write, believe, count, think, imagine, feel, explain, be interested, remember, hear, be surprised, rejoice) ).

The subordinate part joins the main one with the help of unions what , to , how , as if , as if , as if , and allied words who , what , what , how , where , where , where , when , why , why , etc., as well as the union -particles whether .

According to semantics, explanatory clauses are divided into three groups.

1. Sentences with real modality (or narrative). The subordinate part is joined by unions what , as , as if ( as if ). The most productive is the model with the union that , for example: 1) There was no hope , 2) that the sky would clear up (A.P. Chekhov). In this type of NGN there are words that cannot be extended by a subordinate clause without a demonstrative pronoun: finished by … ; began with the fact that … ; it came down to the fact that … and others, for example: 1) It began with , 2) that Katya complained to me about her comrades (A.P. Chekhov).

2. Offers with an unreal modality (or incentives). The subordinate part is joined with the help of unions so that , as it were , for example: 1) He expressed an insistent desire , 2) that it was you who defended him in court (M. Gorky); 1) I keep thinking , 2) how can I not hook him (Herman). In this group of sentences, the object is presented as desirable, possible or necessary.

3. Sentences with relative subordination, in contrast to the first two groups of sentences with allied subordination, (or interrogative). The subordinate clause is joined with the help of allied words and the particle union li . A specific feature of the use of the union is that it is not between predicative units, but after the first word of the subordinate part, for example: 1) It is not known, 2) whether he was at home 3) or not (Konetsky); 1) It was necessary to wait and find out by the side, 2) who 3) and where he was going, 4) how many parties, 5) what leaders (D.S. Mamin-Sibiryak).

As you can see from the examples, the sentences of this group take the form of an indirect question, but they can also express an indirect exclamation (if exclamation words of pronominal origin are used to connect the parts: what , how , what for ), for example: It’s amazing how smart I am … and how sweet she is,” she (Natasha Rostova) continued, speaking of herself in the third person and imagining that a very smart, most intelligent and good man (L.N. Tolstoy) was talking about her .

4. Pronoun-correlative type. In contrast to the considered SPP with subordinate substantive-defining, comparative and explanatory clauses, where the clause extends the word of the main clause, in this type the clause makes up for the semantic insignificance of the demonstrative pronoun or pronominal adverb in the host, for example: 1) Who is afraid and avoids love, 2 ) he is not free (A.P. Chekhov); 1) She knew life as badly as possible, 2) as far as it is possible at the age of 20 (I.A. Kuprin); 1) White acacias smelled so strongly, 2) that their sweet, sugary, candy aroma was felt on the lips and in the mouth (I.A. Kuprin).

The means of communication in pronominal-correlative sentences are correlates or correlative pairs (words) and the connection in them is not conditional, but correlational.

According to the nature of the means of communication, V.A. Beloshapkova divides pronominal-correlative sentences into three types:

1) identifying (sentences with correlative words that have a subject, spatial or attributive meaning, and with a relative connection). The means of communication are the correlates of one – who , then – what , there – where , there – where , from there – from where , so – like , as much – how much , so much – how much , such – what , such – what , for example: 1) Such silence, 2) which happens only before dawn (Lavrenev); 1) Who loves, 2) he goes to the end (A. Green); 1) Whoever has a talent in himself, 2) is purer in soul (N.V. Gogol); 1) There , there with all my heart I aspire, there , 2) where the heart was so easy, 3) where Marusya weaves a wreath of flowers, 4) blind Gritsko sings about antiquity. (A.K. Tolstoy)

Pronominal-relative sentences are organized with the participation of correlation pairs consisting of two pronominal words – a pronominal word (correlative) in the main part and an allied word in the subordinate clause. Correlative words express identifying semantic relations: 1) subjective, 2) circumstantial-spatial, 3) definitive.

Sentences with the objective meaning of pronominal words are formed using correlative pairs that (that) … who (that), that (that) … that, that (that) … whose, then … that : It was especially difficult for those who walked behind (Ars. ).

Sentences with the adverbial-spatial meaning of pronominal words are formed using correlative pairs there … where, there … where, there … from where, there … where, there … where, there … where, from there … where, from there … where, from there … from where : And where there was once a father’s house, Now lies ash and a layer of road dust (Yesen.).

Sentences with the definitive meaning of pronominal words are formed with the help of correlative pairs so … like, such … what, such … what, as much … how much, so much … as far as … because : It was as quiet as it happens in the forest in winter on a windless day (Kupr .); As far as the drunken Urbenin considered himself the happiest of mortals, her pretty face was so unhappy (Ch.);

2) a pronominal-union correlative or phraseological type (correlative words with a definitive qualitative or quantitative meaning, and as allied means – asemantic unions that , so that and unions expressing an unreal comparison, as if ( as if ), as if , exactly ), then there are in this type the following correlates are used: so – what , such – so that , before – as if , to such an extent – as if , so much – that , so much – so that , etc., for example: 1) Unmowed meadows are so fragrant, 2) that out of habit, the head becomes foggy and heavy (K.G. Paustovsky); 1) If the beauties of the earth, then such , 2) to take your breath away, 3) if it’s work, then it’s such , 4) so that your hands buzz … (K.G. Paustovsky); 1) He gave so many details, 2) as if he was afraid, 3) that they would not believe him (Antonov).

Pronominal-union correlative sentences are formed with the participation of correlation pairs containing a pronominal word (a correlate with the meaning of a qualitative or quantitative characteristic in the main part) and a conjunction in the subordinate clause. These sentences express the following meanings: 1) degree/mode of action and consequence; 2) degree/mode of action and comparison.

Sentences with the meaning of the degree / mode of action and consequence are organized using demonstrative pronominal words so, such, such, so many ( so ) , so and synonymous combinations to such an extent, to such an extent, to such a degree, so, thus, correlating with conjunctions that, to: In other boarding schools it happens in such a way that first the pianoforte, then the French language, and then the economic part (G.); This smell was terrible to the point that it could even be seen (Bulg.).

Sentences with the meaning of the degree / manner of action and comparison are organized using demonstrative pronominal words so, such, such, so many ( so ) , so and synonymous combinations to such an extent, to such an extent, to that, thus, correlating with conjunctions as if , as if, exactly, as if: Comrades rumbled outside the windows all night like they were tearing a stone (Chivil.).

The prepositive part of sentences with the meaning of degree/mode of action and consequence, as well as sentences with the meaning of degree/mode of action and comparison, reports on one or another sign – the quality or quantity of objects. In sentences with the meaning of the degree/mode of action and consequence, the attribute pointed to by the correlate is not determined directly, but through the consequence that follows from it: the attribute is at the same time an “apparent” consequence presented in the postpositive part. Similarly, in sentences with the meaning of the degree / manner of action and comparison, the attribute pointed to by the correlate is determined indirectly – through the comparison presented in the postpositive part;

3) containing with a semantically empty word that which contains the content of the subordinate clause, for example: 1) This book is good in that , 2) that makes you think (them = clause).

In sentences with the meaning of containing, the correlate, taking the position of a constructively necessary or optional distributor of the structural basis of the prepositive part, contains the content of the postpositive part. The enclosing sentences contain a correlate of that ( with that, that, in that ) and unions that and that : We started by complaining to each other about the duration of the service (Ch.); It ended with Pyotr Vasilyich becoming an absolutely indispensable person in the house of Boris Andreevich (T.).

3. In an NGN of a dissected structure, the subordinate part extends the entire main part as a whole. The nature of the dismembered structure of relations expressed in NGN is directly related to the meaning of certain semantic conjunctions. Among the SPP of a dissected structure, subordinate clauses are distinguished:

– time;

– conditions:

a) conditions;

b) goals;

c) reasons;

d) consequences;

e) concessions;

– comparative;

– connecting;

– comparative.

NGN with clauses of time . Temporal relations can be expressed using conjunctions when , while , how , after , as soon as, etc. These sentences convey information about different types of temporal correlation of two situations, events or facts, for example: 1) While there is life, 2) there is and happiness (L.N. Tolstoy).

The subordinate part can take in relation to the main postposition, interposition and preposition, for example: 1) People invented the story about the seven wonders of the world, 2) when the earth was almost unknown (V. Peskov); 1) Until the sun rose, 2) it was easy to breathe … (A. Green); 1) They go on the attack with the same sticks, in the calculation, 2) when they kill a neighbor, take a rifle (A.N. Tolstoy). During interposition, the adverbial time acquires additional conjunctive and emphatic shades of meaning.

Depending on the structural features of the main and subordinate parts (various conjunctions and demonstrative words; the ratio of aspectual-temporal forms of verbs-predicates of the main and subordinate parts), simultaneity relations can be expressed in NGN with a subordinate tense (the predicate has the form of an imperfect form or in one part – perfect view, in the other – an imperfect view), for example: 1) When she played the piano downstairs, 2) I got up and listened (K. Simonov); and relations of different times (sequence), when verbs-predicates have a perfective form, for example: 1) He has noticeably turned gray since , 2) how we parted with him (I.S. Turgenev).

In sentences of simultaneity, the situation reported in the main part completely or partially coincides in time with the situation referred to in the subordinate part. In sentences of different times, the situation reported in the main part precedes or follows the situation referred to in the subordinate part.

The unions that draw up temporary relations differ in their ability to unambiguously indicate the simultaneity or sequence of what is reported in the main and subordinate parts. Some unions (of a differentiated meaning) are able to unambiguously indicate the temporal correlation of situations – simultaneity, precedence or temporal following. Other unions (of undifferentiated meaning) indicate the temporal correlation of situations only in a general way.

Unions of differentiated meaning qualifies the temporal attribute as follows. While, at the time when they indicate the simultaneity of actions in parts; before, before, before, earlier than – on the temporal precedence of the action in the main part; after, since – for the temporary succession of the action in the main part; as soon as, just, barely, just, barely, just, just a little, have the meaning of direct consequence: Just at the time when consciousness left Styopa in Yalta, that is, about half past twelve, it returned to Ivan Nikolaevich Bezdomny, who woke up after deep and prolonged sleep (I. and P.); But before I begin to describe the competition itself, I consider it not superfluous to say a few words about each of the characters (T.); Half an hour after the lady left, they had dinner in Zhurkin’s hut (Ch.); As soon as a dog’s figure appeared on the street opposite our house, Barbos quickly rolled down from the window, slipped on his belly into the gateway and rushed at full speed to the impudent violator of territorial laws (Kupr.).

Unions of undifferentiated meaning ( when, how, while ) are used in sentences expressing the relationship of simultaneity and temporal succession. These relations are concretized by correlating the types of verb-predicates in the main and subordinate parts.

Temporary sentences can be built according to phrase models [did not have time + infinitive + how], [not even a minute, a year, an hour + how]: But Fenya had not even had time to open her mouth, when Masha Solovieva spoke (Al).


In these proposals, two situations are correlated, one of which is made dependent on the other.

NGN with subordinate conditions . Conditional clauses are attached to the main part with unions if ( if ), if ( if ), if ( if ), if , once , if , when , as they can be in post-, pre- and interposition. In the postposition, the subordinate part extends the main part, indicating the condition under which what is said in the main part is carried out or possible, for example: 1) People in general, and women in particular, have one terrible trait: 2) they easily forgive filth – 3) since it was made in their name (V.F. Komissarzhevskaya).

With the preposition of the subordinate part, relationships of interdependence are expressed (conditional-investigative, conditionally-effective relationships). At the same time, double alliances are often used if – then , when – then , once – so , etc., for example: 1) Since you agreed, 2) you can’t refuse (Dal).

The interposition of the subordinate clauses especially emphasizes the importance of the condition, thereby approaching the plug-in constructions, therefore, if there are dashes or brackets instead of commas, then we have a plug-in construction, for example: M.M. Prishvin).

In conditional sentences, clauses express conditional relations. The carrier of the value of a sufficient reason is the subordinate part, in which a predetermining situation is presented – corresponding or not corresponding to reality, or having a hypothetical character. The subordinate clause expresses the real, potential and unreal condition:

– Real Condition NGN reports a condition that actually existed or exists. The means of communication are unions if, if, if, when . The main and subordinate parts have forms of the indicative mood of the present or past tense, for example: 1) When money speaks, 2) the truth is silent (Proverb); If there is luck in battle, Then in the end everything is in a row With praise, very hot, They talk about each other (A. Tvardovsky);

– in the NGN of a potential condition, what is reported in the main part is thought of as really possible, subject to the condition contained in the subordinate part. The subordinate part is introduced by unions if, if, if, when . The main and subordinate parts have the forms of the indicative or imperative mood: If we do not immediately find residential places on the other side of the Sikhote-Alin, we will have to starve (Ars.);

– in NGN of an unreal condition, what is reported in the main part is thought of as impossible due to non-fulfillment of the condition contained in the subordinate part. The subordinate clause is introduced by conjunctions if, if, if only . The main and subordinate parts have the forms of the subjunctive or infinitive, for example: 1) If you were music, 2) I would listen to you incessantly (A. Akhmatova); If the Stargorod conspirators had seen the giant of thought and the father of Russian democracy at this critical moment for him, then , one must think, the secret alliance of the “Sword and Plowshare” would have ceased to exist. (Ilf and Petrov).

NGN with subordinate purposes . Subordinate goals are attached to the main part with unions so that , in order , in order to , in order to , then so that and particles acting as unions, only , only with a particle would . Additional goals can be in post- , pre- and interposition and indicate the goal, the purpose of what is said in the main part, for example: .G.Paustovsky); 1) One must always act, 2) so that one is not ashamed in front of anyone, 1) honestly (K.G. Paustovsky); 1) In order to be happy, 2) one must not only love, but also be loved (K.G. Paustovsky). Target sentences express the purpose of the action. A sign of sufficient reason is contained in each of the correlated parts: the main part reports on the premise that provides the expected result, the subordinate part reports on the stimulus, combining the meaning of the stimulus and the potential result.

In the most general form, target relations are expressed in sentences with conjunctions to and in order (obsolete). The modality of desirability requires the presence of an infinitive or subjunctive form in the subordinate part (in which the particle would be part of the union). The infinitive is obligatory if the subjects of the actions of the main and subordinate parts are the same; the form of the subjunctive mood is used when the subjects do not coincide: Wait, poet, for peace of mind, To convey the breath of the storm, So that one quatrain lies In your long-opened notebook. (S.Ya.Marshak)

Target proposals are divided into self-targeted and non-targeted. In proper-target sentences, the target semantics is presented in a form not complicated by subjective-evaluative meanings: Having examined the wonderful thing, Mitrasha locked the compass so that the arrow would tremble in vain on the way. (M.M. Prishvin)

Non-target sentences are subdivided into sentences with a lexical concretizer in the main part, complicating the target semantics with the meaning of the necessary reason, sufficient reason and redundant reason, and the anti-goal sentence.

The concretizers need, need, need take part in the formation of the meaning of the necessary foundation: I need the eye and the wisdom of a cooper, To fasten the speech, like a barrel, with hoops (Ryl.).

Target sentences, complicated by the meanings of sufficient and redundant reason, are phraseologized. Indicators of the value of a sufficient reason are concretizers enough, enough , etc., indicators of the value of an excess reason are concretizers too much , etc.: This rumor alone was enough to shake the state balance (A.T.); Grandfather Matvey carried too much life experience on his angular shoulders to be able to deceive him, old Zhurbin, with these director’s tales (Koch.).

In the sentences of the anti-goal, the action referred to in the subordinate part devalues the action named in the main part, which leads to the complication of the target semantics with opposing relations: In the evening, a few hours after Bakharev’s arrival, he fell asleep in the arms of his daughter and Bakharev, so as not to wake up again (M.-S.).

On the basis of the union, compound unions are formed in order to, then so that, in order to, in order to, in the name of, in order to, in order to, in order to, with the expectation that, able to be dismembered: For this we live from the day of birth To forever cancel in the hearts This terrible weapon – Lies, and suspicion, and fear. (Light.) Sentences with such unions express their own target meaning.

Adjunctive goals, attached by particles-unions if only, if only , are used, as a rule, in a postposition and have an additional connecting connotation, for example: 1) I’m ready for anything, 2) if only my mother would recover (K.G. Paustovsky); 1) He asked this question, 2) just to ask something (K.G. Paustovsky). These allied particles introduce into sentences the meaning of readiness to make every effort to achieve something ( if only, if only ) or to prevent something ( if only not, if only not ): – I would also be ready to sit in the hold, I don’t know how long, only to pluck other people’s flags from our ships. (K. Fedin)

NGN with subordinate causes . Subordinate causes are attached to the main unions since , because , because , due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that , due to the fact that , due to the fact that , especially since , then that , for , etc. Additional causes indicate the reason or justification for what is being said in the main part and can occupy post-, pre- and interposition, for example: 1) The yellowing flame is wrinkling, 2) it is trembling and hiding from the cold. 3) For the wax eaten by fire melts (Andreev). Unions cannot be used in prepositive clauses because , because , all the more so , good , because in these NGN, causal relationships are also expressed: in the first part (subordinate) – the cause, in the second part (main) – the consequence, for example : 1) Since the site turned out to be very swampy, 2) I had to urgently start drying it (A.I. Kuprin).

In causal sentences, therefore, such a connection of situations is reported in which one of them serves as a sufficient basis for the implementation of the other. The carrier of the meaning of a sufficient reason is the subordinate part: it motivates what is reported in the main part.

There are sentences with proper causal meaning and sentences with non-proper causal meaning. In sentences with proper causal meaning, the subordinate part names the immediate reason for what is reported in the main part: The Germans did not laugh because Hauptwachtmeister Brückner (A. Fadeev) did not laugh. because, for the sake of that, due to the fact that, on the basis of that, on the basis of the fact that, for the sake of which, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that , due to the fact that.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.