Many people do not see the difference in which verb to use in a given context - "to put on" or "to put on." Many even believe that any rules, explanations and clarifications are not needed at all. In their opinion, “putting on a hat” or “putting on a hat” sounds different, but the result will still be the same.
Dictionary Ushakov about the verbs "dress" and "put on"
IN " explanatory dictionary» Ushakov gives such explanations of the verb «dress»:
- To clothe - to clothe someone or something in some kind of clothing. For example: "Dress the artists in fancy dress."
- To dress means to cover or wrap something for warmth. For example, dress a horse with a blanket, dress a sick person with a blanket.
- IN figurative meaning“to dress” means to envelop, cover, envelop. Examples are figurative expressions-metaphors: "Winter covered the whole earth with snow" or "Trees dressed the clearing with lacy shadows."
- To dress in wide to provide someone with clothes, to help in acquiring all kinds of robes. For example: "So she tried to dress her family, that she worked tirelessly."
About the verb "put on" Ushakov writes:
- Put on - pull, cover, pull on clothes, a piece of clothing or a blanket, blanket, fabric in order to hide from the cold, rain or wind, or hide, hide nakedness. Examples: “Since it’s raining, don’t forget to put on a hood!”, “A smart girl put on a net - and she became not naked and not in clothes!”
- To put on is to put something on something. “Petrovich put the duck on a skewer - and on the fire it, let it blush better!”
Figurative meaning of the verb "put on"
Some linguists argue that the word "put on" is not as ambiguous as its counterpart "dress". Like, it defines only specific actions, and in figuratively it is impossible to use it.
However, this is not entirely true. The verb "put on" can serve as part of a metaphor expression when there is animation or transfer of human actions to it.
Examples are such sentences: “The birch trees put on their earrings, as if the girls were married off” or “I put on an oak coat made of snow, like old grandfather, stands to itself, creaks.
Back to Rosenthal
At school, teachers explain the use of “dress” and “put on” based on the following explanations by Rosenthal: they dress someone (or something, for example, a doll, a corpse, a stuffed animal) in something or something, and they put something on then on someone.
That is, you can dress or dress your son in a jacket, the bride in wedding attire, hand with glove. But you can wear something on someone or on something: a jacket on a son, Wedding Dress on the bride, a glove on her hand. Even a hint phrase is given: "Grandfather is dressed, a sheepskin coat is on."
Antonyms help us!
Some people, faced with the dilemma of how to say "put on" or "put on a coat", have come up with an easy way to choose the right option. It turns out that you can use the antonyms of these words.
A word with the opposite meaning of the verb “dress” will be the action “undress”, and the antonym of the verb “put on” is considered to be “take off”. Since the phrase "take off your coat" is meaningless, it is, of course, impossible to put on a coat.
In the same way you can do right choice between two expressions: "put on glasses" or "put on glasses." Can you take off your glasses? Of course not! Therefore, the second option should be considered correct - to wear glasses.
This is the explanation that most modern people, considering it the easiest and most correct.
semantic confusion
In fact, the use of the verbs “put on” or “put on” most often does not introduce confusion into the understanding of what has been said. Although such a possibility exists if, for example, the conversation is about a parsley doll, which, like a glove, is put on a hand.
An offer to dress a parsley doll will mean that the doll should be dressed in new clothes: change a hat, put on a cape or tie a scarf. But the request to put on the doll already means that you need to pull the parsley on your hand and get ready for the performance. So in this situation, the use of the verbs “put on” or “put on” radically changes the meaning of what was said.
A similar thing can also arise when it comes to the words “scarecrow” or “scarecrow”, because they can also be dressed in something, or put on a pole or pole.
Humor in Russian lessons
As you know, teenagers in all ages have been distinguished by nihilism. The majority enthusiastically perceives with hostility all generally accepted rules. And, of course, they are trying to prove that the words “put on” and “put on” are almost the same, so it makes no sense to figure out which one should be used in this or that case.
The teacher has to be an artist, a storyteller in the classroom, be able to masterfully conduct a discussion, select irrefutable evidence, and logically prove the need for knowledge of the rules of the Russian language. And he also needs to be ... a comedian.
After all, humor is probably the most powerful weapon against ignorance. And even if the situation told by the teacher will not be very plausible, but its imagery will leave a “notch” in the minds forever. Thanks to the funny “picture” created by the imagination of a wise teacher, students will understand that there is a huge difference between the verbs “put on” and “put on”.
dressed chicken
The confusion in the use of these two verbs is due to the fact that both verbs are of the same root. However, the verb "put on" has more meanings. Along with the process of putting on garments, it can also carry the meaning of “putting on”, for example, on a skewer or pike. The story, which will make the guys laugh and remain in their memory, is just based on this ambiguity of the verb “put on”.
At one of the student picnics in the company there was a young man who understood everything literally. His name was Hernando, he was Mexican. The guys decided to cook chicken on a skewer.
When the fire in the fire blazed merrily, the person in charge of preparing the treat said to Hernando: “Dress the chicken - here is the skewer!” The guy to whom the request was addressed nodded his head and walked away from the fire to the table where the raw food lay.
He was absent for quite some time. But when he returned with a chicken in his hands, friendly laughter just blew up the neighborhood! The chicken was wearing a leather cap, her waist was adorned with a skirt with straps - a sort of sarafan made from a chiffon scarf of one of the flirtatious students, and the stumps of her legs were tucked into someone's sneakers.
The one who gave Hernando the order to "dress the chicken" was the most outraged, because it was his cap and his sneakers that were ruined by the stupid Mexican. But he calmly replied that he fulfilled the request exactly: to dress a chicken means to dress it in some kind of outfit. He already knows Russian!
Of course, at first the order seemed a little strange to him. But he reasoned like this: being familiar with some Russian customs, the young man never tired of being surprised by them. For example, at carols people dress up in the skins of various animals, New Year decorate the tree. Maybe there is some other custom when you need to dress up a chicken before frying it?
An ironic illustration of the rules helps better memorization
By the way, after this funny story the teacher can present the children with pictures with captions: one picture, which depicts a "smart" chicken, and under it the phrase: "Put the chicken in clothes," and the second picture with a carcass on a skewer, under which it says: "Put the chicken on a skewer."
After such a humorous and visual impact, the guys will never confuse what to say: “put on” or “put on”. Chicken dress, cap and sneakers - this picture will be remembered for sure!
When do we say "dressed"?
So it's time to deal with definitions formed from verbs. It should be remembered that the verb "clothe" is used only in relation to animate objects or inanimate, but having signs of a person (corpse, doll, stuffed animal, mannequin). As mentioned above, sometimes this verb appears in metaphors with animated objects of inanimate nature - the abilities of living beings are attributed to them.
Therefore, the word "clothed" can also serve as a definition of only a living being or animated by human fantasy. dressed man, dressed lady, houses dressed in snow caps - these are examples of the use of the word "dressed".
Although in fairy tales heroes (animated inanimate in ordinary life objects) can be dressed: this is a table, a bed, and other things.
“The table, dressed in a festive tablecloth, proudly looked at its neighbors” or “A photograph of her father dressed in an elegant frame, still gathering dust in the closet, was extremely happy from these changes in her fate.”
"Glove on", "glove on" - which is correct?
In relation to inanimate objects, the definition "put on" should be used. That is, the suit cannot be dressed, but only worn. The same applies to the words "glasses", "skirt", "coat", "hat" and others, denoting objects that are worn.
The glove example can be used in the classroom to explain the semantic difference between the terms “dressed” and “put on”. For better memorization, you can provide students with pictures with captions. Moreover, one of them will be reliable - with the signature "worn glove." But the picture signed with the phrase “wearing a glove” will be humorous in nature - there, on the glove, or rather, on one of her fingers, a hat is put on and a scarf is tied.
The phrase "wearing a glove" can only exist in a fairy tale or fantasy story where the accessory comes to life, can dress up, speak, think. For example, some ladies wear rings over gloves. And like this fantasy story allows the use of this phrase: the hostess put a ring on top of one glove, but not on the other. And the "clothed glove", with a golden belt adorned with a diamond, taunts her sister, who "is forced to go out naked." This story may end with the fact that the hostess loses one glove - the one that was “undressed”. The “rich glove” rejoices - now she will no longer tolerate this annoying beggar next to her! However, misfortune awaits her: the hostess, having discovered the loss and grieved, throws a silly asshole into the trash.
Dress up or put on... These two words are quite common in Russian colloquial and written speech.
However, some believe that there is absolutely no difference between them. What to wear a ring, what to wear a ring - everything is the same.
But is it really so and is there any significant difference between these two words? Let's try to figure it out.
And I really hope that after this article you will say exactly what exactly should be done with the ring - to put on or put on.
Both of these words - and "put on" and "dress" - are verbs.
And everyone knows this very well, they taught back in primary school. And remember - in one of the textbooks on the Russian language, it was even described in detail and even drawn, who exactly was dressed and what exactly they were wearing. Let's try to refresh that knowledge in our memory.
Verb to dress
This verb denotes an action that is performed by someone in relation to someone or to any inanimate object. For example, the following expressions should be given:
1. Dress the child
2. Dress up the old man
3. Dress up the doll
4. Dress up the girl
If you look closely at these sentences, you can see that between the word "dress" and the word, for example, "doll" can you ask who? or what? Let's take a few more examples.
1. Dress up (whom?) brother in clean clothes
2. Dress up (whom?) girl in a fashionable coat
3. Dress up (What?) stuffed animal in an old dress
There is another way to determine which word to use - put on or put on. The verb "dress" refers to verbs that are called reflexive.
That is, it can be used with a particle - sya. Again, here are a few examples:
1. Dress for the season
2. Dress up in a fashion salon
3. Dress only in new
Verb to put on
The verb to put on, unlike the verb “to put on,” denotes an action that is directed at itself. For example:
1. We need to put on a new suit
2. I will put on something warmer
3. I put on my most beautiful dress
However, there are also such sentences in which the use of the verb "dress" would be simply illogical. Here it is necessary to use only the verb "put on". An example would be the following sentences:
1. Put on a patient gown
2. Put glasses on your nose
3. Put the cover on the chair
4. Put the tires on the wheels
What do all these proposals have in common? Yes, indeed, the verb put on is used here only in relation to inanimate objects (except for the patient). And each such sentence has a short word "on". That is, "to put on" to put something on someone or put on something.
There is another very simple hint that will help you decide how to write correctly - to put on or put on.
So, remember - they put something on themselves or on something else, but they dress someone and dress themselves. Example.
Verbs ... Probably, many will agree that the main headache associated with them. More precisely, with their correct spelling. And, it seems, at school they taught us the rules well mother tongue, and we passed the exam as “good” or even “excellent”, but on you, we stubbornly continue to “sculpt” error upon error. For example, what might seem to be easier rules that "not" with verbs is always written separately. And yet we step on this rake.
Let's stop at two
This material is devoted to only two "harmful" verbs. And they differ, in essence, only one or two letters. It's "put on" and "put on". Many do not see a fundamental difference between them and use them as synonyms. And absolutely in vain! By the way, again, if you remember " school years marvelous," namely primary school, then even in one of the textbooks on the Russian language all the nuances of the correct spelling of these verbs were clearly spelled out and the rules were accompanied by pictures for clarity.
So what is the right way to dress or wear?
The one that starts with "o"
Let's start with the verb "dress". Of course, it means action, as well as this part speech in general. But what exactly? That which is produced by one person in relation to another. Moreover, this other person is either not fully capable, or is inanimate object. This row includes: a child, an old man, a doll, a mannequin.
Between the verb "dress" and the noun immediately following it, it is easy to put case question"whom?" or "what?" And then it will be much more difficult to make a mistake.
And one more the right way avoid mistakes. The verb "dress" is quite easy to turn into a so-called reflexive verb - one that is used with the suffix "sya" at the end. Thus, at the output we get the form of "dressing" - in something new, fashionable or seasonal. And with the verb "put on" this number will not work. The word "to put on" simply does not exist in our language. You can only say “just put it on” when this or that clothes fit during the fitting.
And now with the initial "on"
Now it's the turn to deal with the use of the verb "put on." Everything is much simpler here. Try to remember just one rule - the action denoted by this verb is directed mainly at yourself. For example, in such phrases as “put on a new suit” or “put on something warmer”, “put on the most fashionable dress”, etc.
Of course, even here there are subtleties - where without them! No wonder Russian is considered one of the most difficult languages for foreigners to learn. So, between the verb "put on" and the noun in case form, the preposition "on" is used. And we get the following sentences: “It is necessary to put a gown on the patient”, “He put glasses on his nose”, “We put a cover on the chair.” Please note that in all the above examples we are talking about inanimate objects.
What is the result?
So now we can formulate general rule concerning the use of both verbs. We put something on ourselves or another, as a rule, inanimate object. We dress someone else or dress ourselves.
Well, I would like to hope that now fashionistas will not be mistaken when they talk, for example, about a ring and will know exactly what is right to do with it - to wear or put on.
Philosophical novel by M.A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" Features of the genre and composition. History of creation - began in 1929, in 1930 - the most difficult period, destroyed the manuscript, frightened, burned it, and in 1932 started anew. In 1934 he finished, but worked on until the end of his life. There are 8 editions in total. The first publication - the magazine "Moscow", 1966-67, a wild success. Lipatov: if before that time belonging to intellectual elite was determined by familiarity at the level of quoting with ease "12 chairs" and "golden calf", then after that - the novel "The Master and Margarita" became the password. The novel “The Master and Margarita” is about everything: about creativity, love, cowardice and repentance, freedom and lack of freedom, faith, the struggle between Good and Evil in a person, about love, hope, hatred, betrayal and mercy.
The novel itself is divided into three layers: historical, modern and fantastic, each of which has its own central figure: in the historical layer, the main characters are Yeshua Ha-Nozri and Pontius Pilate; in the modern - the Master and Margarita, who go through "fire and water" in order to achieve peace. And, finally, fantasy, the devil in which is not the devil at all. All three layers are intertwined, it is impossible to separate them. Bulgakov emphasizes the immutability of the problems solved by man, their independence from time.
Story. The primary source of the novel about Pilate is chapters 18, 19 of the Gospel of John, which deals with the trial of Jesus Christ and his execution. The purpose and meaning of the "Romance of Pilate" is the same as the Gospel of John (not historical narrative, but a collection of allegorical parables), which is apparently why Bulgakov relied on the Gospel of John, despite the fundamental difference in the interpretation of the image of Jesus. The master (Bulgakov) needed Pontius Pilate as the main character, because otherwise it would not have been possible to show the difficult path of doubts, fears, outbursts of compassion, spiritual suffering of a person vested with power by the state and not in control of his actions.
The most terrible and unforgivable from Bulgakov's point of view is betrayal, because this is the main problem of the Yershalaim chapters. Pilate approves Yeshua's death sentence because he fears for his position and life. However, the punishment for cowardice is twenty centuries of immortal suffering. Judas betrays Yeshua because of his “lust for money.” This betrayal is “standard”, therefore Judas is not punished as terribly as Pilate, he is killed. Yeshua is kind and noble, but he is "alone in the world." He has the truth, and this is given to him at the cost of renouncing love and friendship.
When a genius turns to power, he dies, this is the thought of Bulgakov through suffering. In the novel, Pilate and the high priest Kaifa have power, but only Yeshua has real, spiritual power. That is why he is terrible for those in power, that is why he dies, although he does not ask for anything from the authorities.
In the historical part, love has nothing to do with the value it is for Bulgakov true love. Yeshua loves everyone, which means no one in particular. Judas selling love leads into a trap. Levi Matvey's love is consumer. Pilate sends the man he loves to his death. In situations where circumstances are higher than a person, there is no way to think about such a value as love.
Responsibility for action. According to Bulgakov, no god and no devil can remove a person from his personal guilt. For twenty centuries Pilate has no forgiveness for his betrayal. “Twelve thousand moons for one moon once” - for Bulgakov, not much.
For Yeshua, the truth is above all, even in the case when a lie could save his life. According to Bulgakov, truth is the only way to live full life but this requires fearlessness of the soul, thoughts, feelings.
Modernity. We meet the same problems in the modern layer of the novel, where Bulgakov draws Moscow in the 30s of the 20th century. This is a time of serious transformations in all spheres of society: industrialization, collectivization, preparations are underway for the great terror, culture in general and literature in particular become completely dependent on the authorities. Life in the 1930s combined mass enthusiasm and a lack of professionalism and qualifications; revolutionary romance and low level culture; faith in a bright future and admiration for the leader. In the story " dog's heart” and the novel “The Master and Margarita” accurately and colorfully reflect the realities of the time.
In the modern layer, first of all, the Master himself betrays the most valuable thing for Bulgakov - the appointment of the writer. But the Master's fear is not Pilate's cowardice, so the Master only "did not deserve the light, he deserved peace." Just like in the historical layer, there is a “standard” betrayal here - Aloysius.
The loneliness of a genius. The Master, like Yeshua, is “alone in the world,” like all geniuses. Even Margarita cannot help him: he does not need help. In the story “The Heart of a Dog”, Professor Preobrazhensky, despite his contempt for power, does not oppose it. The Master does not confront her directly, but she is the one who tries to break him. The fate of the master real life Bulgakov here coincide.
Love. Margarita in the novel is an ideal loving woman. The prototype of Margarita is considered to be Elena Sergeevna Shilovskaya and Margarita Petrovna Smirnova. Service high literature(Master) - the “divine” way, literature pleasing to the authorities (Ryukhin, Bezdomny) - “devilish”.
Responsibility for action. Bulgakov is just as merciless in the modern board as in the chapters of Yershalaim. Berlioz receives non-existence for unbelief, Margarita, who left the Master for one night, almost loses him. Fantastic. The prototype of Woland is Goethe's Mephistopheles. There are prototypes and his retinue. According to Bulgakov, the life he lives can only be changed with the help of supernatural forces. Woland is alone, like all geniuses. He is brilliant because he establishes justice, but around him there are only performers. Experiment problem. One way or another, Woland puts everyone to the test: tricks in the variety show, the test of Margarita, etc.
