In their speech, people quite often use introductory constructions to show their attitude to what exactly they are talking about. When writing, the introductory phrase must be highlighted with commas, and in oral speech such a phrase should be highlighted intonationally. Let's take a closer look at some of the rules and features of using this type of design.

Definition of introductory turnover

Introductory phrases are words, phrases and whole sentences that reflect the speaker’s attitude to what he is talking about, or indicate. These phrases are part of the sentence, but are not their members, and also do not enter into a syntactic connection with other members of the sentence and are not members of the sentence at all.

How to identify introductory structures

Since the same words can act both as an introductory construction and as an ordinary member of a sentence, you need to know how exactly such phrases can be defined in Russian. Examples will help you better understand this issue:

Firstly, if you remove the introductory construction from the text, the meaning of the text will not be lost. Compare: “The enterprise may already have been reorganized” and “The enterprise may still be reorganized.” In the first case, this word is introductory, since the meaning of the sentence will not be lost, which does not apply to the second option. However, this method of verification is not always correct, since the structure may be preserved. In this case, you should pay attention to the meaning of the phrase. For example: “This problem has been solved.” If “thus” is understood as “in this way,” then this is not an introductory phrase, but if it is understood as “so,” then this turn of phrase should be considered introductory and must be highlighted with a comma.
Secondly, introductory words are not members of the sentence and therefore it is impossible to pose a question to or from them. Compare: “I think I understand everything now” and “She seems a little tired to me.” In the first case, it is impossible to ask a question about the word “seems”, and in this case it is an introductory word. In the second case, you can ask the question “What does it do?”, and the word “seems” acts as a predicate.
Thirdly, one introductory word or phrase in a sentence can be easily replaced by another, without losing the meaning of the entire sentence. For example: “She may have called her father herself and told her what happened.” In this version, when replacing “possibly” with “probably” the meaning of the entire sentence will not be lost.

Also, when using some words and phrases as introductory constructions, slight difficulties may arise. Let's take a closer look at each of them.

Words: by the way, in general, in short, actually, in essence, in truth, more precisely - as introductory words

The words: by the way, in general, in short, in fact, in essence, in truth, more precisely, will be used in a sentence as introductory words, if the meaning of “speaking” can be added to them. Compare: “By the way, we are going to go to the forest tomorrow” and “This outfit came in handy for her.” Obviously, in the first case, the word “by the way” is introductory, since “speaking” can be added to it, and it must be separated on both sides by commas.

Features of using “however” as an introductory word

“However” can act both as a conjunction and as an introductory word. If “however” can be completely replaced by the word “but”, then in this case it is a conjunction. For example, we wanted to come for a visit, but bad weather ruined all our plans.

If the word “however” is in the middle or at the end of a sentence and does not serve to connect two complex or parts of a sentence, then it acts as an introductory word and it is obligatory to highlight it in the text with commas. For example, we wanted to come for a visit, but the rain ruined all our plans.

"Finally" as an introductory word

“Finally” can act as an introductory figure of speech. In this case, the word determines the order in which the author presents information. For example: “Firstly, he is young, secondly, he is strong, and finally, he is full of strength and energy.”

If “finally” acts as an adverbial adverb of time and can be replaced with “at the end” or “finally,” then this word is not introductory. For example: We walked for an incredibly long time and finally came out in the forest.

Phrases that are most often perceived as introductory constructions

Many people believe that: literally, perhaps, in addition, as if, suddenly, in conclusion, ultimately, after all, after all, hardly, hardly, even, precisely, exclusively, as if, just, as if , besides, I suppose, meanwhile, according to a proposal, according to a decision, according to a decree, approximately, approximately, therefore, moreover, almost, decisively, simply, allegedly, as if - these are introductory phrases, but this is not so. These words and phrases do not act as introductory constructions and there is no need to separate them with commas.

Types of input revolutions according to their meaning

All introductory words and phrases are divided into several categories depending on what meanings are expressed by the introductory figures of speech. Examples will clearly show the differences:

Introductory phrases that express an assessment of the degree of reliability of information (confidence, doubt): undoubtedly, of course, indisputably, in all likelihood, self-evidently, apparently, indeed, and others. For example: “All the villagers were really very nice people.”
Words that express the normality of the described event: it happens, it happens, as usual, as usual, as always, as usual, and others. For example: “The New Year’s party is held, as always, in the assembly hall of the kindergarten.”
Introductory constructions that express the emotions and feelings of the speaker: to joy, fortunately, unfortunately, to pleasure, to surprise, unfortunately, to amazement, to regret, to chagrin, to chagrin, uneven hour, strange thing, as if on purpose, why good luck. For example: “To my surprise, it came together very quickly, and I didn’t have to wait long for it.”
Introductory words that indicate the sequence of thoughts: firstly, secondly, on the one hand, on the other hand, therefore, on the contrary, finally, on the contrary, in general, however, in particular, by the way, by the way, so, means, therefore, in addition, thus, for example, so. For example: “Her smile did not testify to a beautiful life, but, on the contrary, tried to hide all her misfortunes.”
Some of the introductory constructions indicate the nature of the statement: in one word, in a word, generally speaking, in short, so to speak, in other words, better to say, in other words, to put it mildly, to put it roughly, between us, to tell the truth, to tell the truth, funny say others too. For example: “To tell you the truth, I was not very impressed with the lunch prepared by the new chef.”
Introductory constructions indicating the source of the reported information: according to the message, according to the words, according to the opinion, according to information, according to rumors, in your opinion, in my opinion, they say, according to my calculations, they say, as is known, from the point of view and others. For example: “According to the witness, the suspect was at home at the time of the crime.”
Introductory words that are directed to the reader in order to attract his attention: see, see, understand, understand, understand, understand, excuse, imagine, forgive, do a favor, please, remember, remember, have mercy, agree, listen, allow, notice yourself and others. For example: “Dumplings, you see, are one of the most favorite dishes of students and bachelors.”

Parts of speech in which introductory constructions can appear

All types of introductory constructions can appear in different parts of speech. According to this criterion, introductory constructions can be presented in such parts of speech as:

when using introductory structures

As mentioned earlier, introductory phrases and words in the text are separated by commas on both sides. In some cases, a dash will be used instead of one of the commas. If the introductory phrase was not fully implemented, then we put a dash after it. For example: “On the one hand, they didn’t let me go to the party, on the other hand, I couldn’t miss it, because all my friends would be there.”

If the introductory word is located in the text before but before all homogeneous members of the sentence, then a dash should be used instead of the first comma. For example: “TV, telephone, computer, refrigerator - in a word, all the equipment in the house worked properly, despite significant voltage drops in the morning.”

Punctuation marks when using introductory sentences

There are several ways to highlight introductory sentences in the text:

Using commas. For example: “I’m sure she will be happy without me”;
Using parentheses. This method of highlighting is used if the introductory sentence acts as additional comments or clarifications to the text. For example: “My appearance (I noticed) confused everyone around me”;
Using a dash. Also used if the introductory sentence is an additional comment or clarification to the text. For example: "The buyers - there were two of them - behaved very reservedly."

Use of participial phrases and introductory constructions

People sometimes confuse introductory phrases and other speech patterns in Russian. Many people believe that the participial phrase is just a type of introductory phrase, since these types of constructions have much in common. The use of participial phrases is similar to introductory sentences; moreover, if the participial phrase is removed from a sentence, the meaning of the sentence will not change, just as when using introductory phrases. Despite this, these types of structures have a number of differences. Firstly, the participial phrase answers the question: “Having done what?” and “Doing what?”, but it is impossible to pose a question to the introductory phrase. Secondly, in a sentence, the participial phrase is determined by the circumstance, and introductory constructions are not a part of the sentence.

Differences between phraseological and introductory phrases

Also, people often have doubts about sentences with Some people try to mistake a phraseological turn for an introductory one. However, it is not. A phraseological phrase is a phrase that is stable in structure and composition, as well as lexically indivisible, which is perceived as a single whole.

Unlike introductory constructions, phraseological figures of speech in Russian in writing should not be distinguished by punctuation marks at all. It is also possible to pose a question to a phraseological phrase, and, therefore, this construction is a member of a sentence. Sentences with phraseological units should not be confused with sentences with introductory constructions, because these are sentences with different types of constructions.

The difference between comparative and introductory turns

In addition to all the above types of constructions with introductory phrases, comparative phrases are often confused and they try to apply all the rules for them, as for introductory ones. These designs are very different from each other. The comparative phrase, just like the phraseological and participle, is a member of the sentence, but always acts as a comparison. Comparative phrases in Russian are not always distinguished by punctuation marks, so you can make a mistake by confusing a comparative phrase with an introductory one.

All of the above types of phrases and the introductory phrase have one common similarity - this is intonation emphasis. It is this kind of selection that, first of all, casts doubt on the correct definition of the introductory construction.

The use of introductory constructions in speech is simply necessary, since they indicate the emotional richness of the text and show the speaker’s attitude towards the object of the conversation. Identifying and correctly highlighting introductory phrases in speech in the Russian language will not be difficult if you know all the simple rules that were described in this article.

Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for that
that you are discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us on Facebook And In contact with

A first date is, on the one hand, an opportunity to meet that same person. On the other hand, it’s a hassle that ultimately leads to nothing.

website will tell you about 7 mistakes we sometimes make on dates and ways to avoid them. Read and meet, because this is a chance to meet, if not the same person, then just an interesting person. And if after reading you still have questions, keep them universal bonus tip at the end of the article.

7. Criticism

Does your partner ask you to chill your red wine? Do you think that the last part of “Pirates of the Caribbean” was the most successful? Doesn’t he see anything shameful in the word “theirs”? Resist the urge to explain how deeply he is mistaken. The first date, in fact, is for this purpose: to evaluate the person and understand whether you are on the right path further. It won't be possible to re-educate your partner the first time, but being remembered as an evil pedant is easy.

Advice: Don't criticize!

6. Talking about exes

The advice “don’t talk about your ex” can only be compared in terms of obviousness to “don’t eat soup with a fork.” But one study suggests that people often bring up the topic of their previous relationships on dates. As a result the partner gets the impression that they are not interested. This is quite an expected impression.

Advice: Well, what do you recommend? Just don't talk about your exes, that's all. After all, from the outside it looks like you brought your ex-partner with you on a date.

5. Talking about work

When talking about work, people often fall into one of two extremes: it's either too bad or too good. In the first case you look like a loser. Secondly, all these enthusiastic stories about trainings, workshops, brainstorms and communities seem to be an attempt to convince oneself of something, first of all.

Advice: Remember some funny story related to work. You don’t need absolutely crazy memories (for example, about how the office toilet was covered with transparent film), but self-irony will not hurt (a story about some terrible competition at a corporate party in which you had to take part will do).

4. Wrong topic of conversation

In addition to exes and work, there are other topics that are not recommended to be discussed when meeting with a stranger. With the person you want to please. These are health problems or lack thereof (it’s not like everyone immediately falls in love with healthy people), religion or politics, excess or lack of money. Lack of justice, true love, cheap buckwheat - also no, like any other thoughts about the imperfection of this world.

Advice: A well-known specialist in the field of relationships has compiled 36 questions that will help a man and a woman get to know each other better and develop sympathy. Read, you will probably find among them ideas for dialogue on the first date. By the way, for the magic to work one hundred percent, everyone in turn needs to answer all the questions and then look into each other’s eyes for 4 minutes.

3. Wrong clothes

Wrong clothes are anything that is uncomfortable, inappropriate for the time of day or weather, provocative, bright or, on the contrary, too gray. Choose classic and comfortable clothes (unless it's a shapeless hoodie), preferably red, and you won't go wrong. And here are some more tips.

Advice for women: The amount of bare skin (or covered with nylon if it's cold) should not exceed 40% if you are looking for a long-term relationship. In heels, your stride becomes shorter and your hip swing becomes stronger. It drives men crazy - shake your head.
A lady in a skirt or dress has a better chance of making a positive first impression. The waist-to-hip ratio that pushes men is 0.6 to 0.8. Clothing with a wrap or horizontal stripes on the hips, thin straps at the waist and a tulip skirt will help you.
Tips for men: Blue jeans and a white T-shirt - this combination was called optimal by almost 70% of women. If white is not an option, then, in addition to red, the fair sex responds well to colors such as purple, black and blue.
What irritates ladies the most are trousers that are too short and jackets that are too big. More than half of the women noted that it is better if a man smells nothing but freshness. That's how it is, guys.

2. Quitting alcohol

If the date takes place in the first half of the day and there is nothing on the table except coffee and cakes, then alcohol will be inappropriate. But if this is dinner, which in any other conditions is accompanied by a glass of red, then why not?

A little (that's the key word) alcohol will help relieve the tension and you'll start to get real. This is worth a lot and compensates for many mistakes. But when we try to behave differently than usual, this leads to tightness in conversation and behavior, which looks unnatural and even terrible. By the way, eating wine with lettuce leaves is also about this.

Advice: Choose those drinks (and dishes too) that you have tried before so that your body’s reaction does not surprise you. Leave all sorts of flaming cocktails, when served, by the bartender to hit you on the head, for later. Well, even the lightest white wine on an empty stomach is, of course, taboo.

1. Bad mood

If the mood has deteriorated on a date because of your unjustified expectations, there is nothing you can do about it, get up and leave. But showing up to a meeting in a bad mood means minimizing the likelihood that they will want to see you a second time. After all, in In a bad mood, we lose our main trump card - a sincere smile.

Advice: If something (or someone) threw you off balance before a meeting, reschedule it. And it’s okay if you’ve already spent a lot of time preparing. It is better to spend this time again than not wait for an invitation to a second date. As for unjustified expectations, try not to build preliminary illusions, and then everything will be much simpler.

Since Copernicus's law was discovered and proven, the mere recognition that it is not the sun that moves, but the earth, has destroyed the entire cosmography of the ancients. It was possible, by refuting the law, to maintain the old view of the movements of bodies, but without refuting it, it seemed impossible to continue the study of the Ptolemaic worlds. But even after the discovery of Copernicus’ law, the Ptolemaic worlds continued to be studied for a long time. Since the first man said and proved that the number of births or crimes obeys mathematical laws and that certain geographical and political-economic conditions determine this or that form of government, that certain relations of the population to the land produce the movements of the people - have since been destroyed in their essence are the foundations on which history was built. It was possible, by refuting the new laws, to maintain the previous view of history, but without refuting them, it seemed impossible to continue studying historical events as products of the free will of people. For if such and such a way of government was established or such and such a movement of the people took place due to such and such geographical, ethnographic or economic conditions, then the will of those people who seem to us to have established the way of government or to have instigated the movement of the people can no longer be considered as a cause. Meanwhile, previous history continues to be studied along with the laws of statistics, geography, political economy, comparative philology and geology, which directly contradict its provisions. The struggle between the old and new views has been going on for a long time and stubbornly in physical philosophy. Theology stood guard for the old view and accused the new of destroying revelation. But when truth triumphed, theology was built just as firmly on new soil. Just as long and stubbornly there is currently a struggle between the old and new views of history, and in the same way theology stands guard for the old view and accuses the new of the destruction of revelation. In both cases, on both sides, the struggle arouses passions and drowns out the truth. On the one hand, there is a struggle of fear and pity for the entire building that has been erected over centuries; on the other hand, the struggle of the passion for destruction. To people who struggled with the emerging truth of physical philosophy, it seemed that if they recognized this truth, faith in God, in the creation of the firmament, in the miracle of Joshua would be destroyed. It seemed to the defenders of the laws of Copernicus and Newton, Voltaire, for example, that the laws of astronomy were destroying religion, and he used the laws of gravity as a weapon against religion. In exactly the same way now it seems: one has only to recognize the law of necessity, and the concept of the soul, of good and evil, and all state and church institutions built on this concept will be destroyed. In the same way now, like Voltaire in his time, uncalled defenders of the law of necessity use the law of necessity as a weapon against religions; whereas, just like the Copernican law in astronomy, the law of necessity in history not only does not destroy, but even affirms the soil on which state and church institutions are built. As in the question of astronomy then, as now in the question of history, the whole difference of view is based on the recognition or non-recognition of the absolute unit that serves as the measure of visible phenomena. In astronomy it was the stillness of the earth; in history - this is the independence of the individual - freedom. Just as for astronomy the difficulty of recognizing the movement of the earth was to renounce the immediate feeling of the immobility of the earth and the same feeling of the movement of the planets, so for history the difficulty of recognizing the subordination of the individual to the laws of space, time and causes is to renounce the immediate feeling of independence personality. But, as in astronomy, the new view said: “True, we do not feel the movement of the earth, but by assuming its immobility, we come to nonsense; by allowing movement, which we do not feel, we come to laws,” and in history the new view says: “It is true that we do not feel our dependence, but by allowing our freedom, we come to nonsense; Having allowed our dependence on the external world, time and causes, we come to laws.” In the first case, it was necessary to abandon the consciousness of non-existent immobility in space and recognize the movement that we cannot sense; in the present case, it is in the same way necessary to renounce non-existent freedom and recognize our imperceptible dependence.

Union but written together, its meaning is close to the conjunction but: The homeland did not wait for them, but(but) they could not live without their Motherland(Peak.). The conjunction, however, should be distinguished from the combination of the demonstrative pronoun then with the preposition for. The pronoun is easily replaced by a noun or extended by a pronoun (for the same thing); to the pronoun you can ask the question for what?: Not for that(for what?) they beat the wolf, that's gray, but for that (for what?) that he ate the sheep (last); Wed, also: Kleizmichel... despised him[Melnikova] for that that this man, perhaps the main creator of the road, did not manage to enrich himself, but lived on one salary(Peak.) - replacing a combination with a union but is impossible. - The heat comes and the morning voices fall silent, but(but) the world of insects comes to life(Przh.).

Unions Also And Same written together, are synonymous and easily replace each other. In addition, they are synonymous with the conjunction and, which can be used as a means of distinguishing between these conjunctions and combinations of the particle with the adverb so or with the pronoun that: also and the same: But damn it Same(also) no one saw it, but who will say a good word about it?(Peak.) - replacing conjunctions does not change the meaning of the sentence. The combinations are the same and also cannot be replaced by the conjunction and, and the particle in them can be omitted, but the meaning of the sentence will not change. In addition, often the combination the same is followed by the pronoun (conjunctive word) that, and the combination the same is followed by the adverb how; sometimes the indicated combinations are preceded by the pronominal word everything (in the role of an intensifying particle): The patient's condition today same as and yesterday; compare: state what and yesterday; Her strong, magnificent, trained body resisted the transition to null space almost as well as for PPL drivers(Efr.); compare: because from drivers; All So same , How from drivers; In a hole without depths - how is life, dear? Is it harder as well as me with someone else?(Color); compare: So whether, How me with someone else?

Note 1. In some cases, the general meaning of a sentence or features of its structure help to distinguish between such unions and combinations. Wed: In the audience Same listened carefully. - In the audience Same listened carefully- in the first case the meaning is “they listened attentively in the audience”, and in the second - “they listened to the same thing”; Just one month is all Also sailed brilliantly in the vast deserts of the luxurious Ukrainian sky, and Also the earth was beautiful in its wondrous silver shine(G.) - in the first part only separate writing is possible, as in the second, since we are talking about the beauty of impressions, and not about listing actions.

Note 2. It is always written together as a particle: Same invented it for me! Same my assistant.

Union to(so - colloquial) is written together, refers to subordinating conjunctions with a target or explanatory meaning. It should be distinguished from the combination of the pronoun that with the particle would; in combination, the particle would be easy to omit without changing the meaning of the sentence; compare: It’s worth at least reading “The Northern Forest” carefully. to make sure of this(Paust.) - why read it? for what purpose? - target conjunction so that ; I'll tell you in advance, I really want to my biography would show: I lived as I wrote, and wrote as I lived(Prishv.) - do you want what? - explanatory conjunction to . - He certainly wanted to become a hero and for this he was ready to do anything, the worst, to he was not offered(Sim.); compare: What he was not offered would ; On to(G.); compare: On What It seemed that Plyushkin needed such destruction of such products?
Sometimes the choice of a conjunction so that or a combination that would depend on the meaning of the sentence; compare: There is no such power to stopped him from these difficulties- (no... for what?) - target relationships, so that - union and rearrangement is impossible.- There is no such power to stopped him in front of these difficulties. - There is no such power What stopped would his...- rearrangement is possible: there is no force, what? - defining relations, therefore, it is possible to write separately so that .

Unions besides And and are written together, they must be distinguished from combinations of prepositions with pronouns at that and at what. Unions have a connecting meaning, are synonymous and easily replace each other; have synonyms yes and, at the same time, besides: I took it into my head to go under the shed where our horses were standing, to see if they had food, and besides(and, moreover, at the same time) caution never hurts(T.); He returned two hours later and received the same answer, and(besides, besides, at the same time) the footman somehow looked askance at him(T.).
The combination of what is used in interrogative sentences or in complex sentences when adding explanatory clauses: What does it have to do with is this our relationship?; I asked him, what does it have to do with there are visiting guests here, if they have nothing to do with his work. The combination is assumed in the answer to a question containing the combination where: Our relationship while that I will not be able to make such a proposal(answer to question: What does it have to do with is this our relationship?).

Note. The combination has nothing to do with it being written in three words: To tell the truth, there is a pike here nothing to do with it. She didn't come here(Kr.).

Separate writing of conjunctions

Explanatory conjunctions are written separately that is(abbreviated in writing as i.e.) and that is (colloquial): She was brought up the old fashioned way that is surrounded by mothers, nannies, girlfriends...(P.).

Compound conjunctions (consisting of two or more words) are written separately. in order to, because, since, so that, whereas, while and etc.

With his statement, the French writer, jurist and philosopher Charles Louis Montesquieu raises the problem of equality of people in various political regimes, that is, ways of organizing the political system that reflect the relations of government and society.

The author of the quote argues that in both democratic and despotic states (with an authoritarian or totalitarian regime), people are equally equal, but for different reasons. In a state with democracy, all members of society are equal, because they are the source of power, and in a state with a despotic regime, because the political elite does not take into account the opinion of the people; such states are characterized by a lack of rights and freedoms.

I completely agree with Montesquieu's statement, because, in my opinion, people in democratic and despotic states are indeed equal, and this can be proven by historical events and literature.

In Anna Akhmatova’s poem “Requiem,” the poetess describes all the upheavals that happened to people during Stalin’s repressions. The main idea of the work is an expression of the scale of the people's grief. The basis of the work was the personal tragedy of Anna Andreevna. Her son, Lev Gumilev, was arrested three times, and she, standing in prison lines for months, tried to find out the fate of her son. This time clearly reflects the equality of all people before the unshakable law: poets, scientists, famous figures and even those who occupy leadership positions.

But at the moment, the Russian Federation is a democratic state that constantly strives to improve the quality of life of its people.

Each member of our society has a large number of rights and freedoms, can vote and be elected, we all have the right to personal integrity. Having equal rights, freedoms and responsibilities, we are equal.

Charles Montesquieu is absolutely right, because in any state all members of society are equal, regardless of how this equality is expressed. In a democratic state this means the presence of a large number of rights and freedoms, and in a despotic state this means their absence.

Updated: 2018-01-21

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

Useful material on the topic

“All people are equal in democracies; they are equal in despotic states: in the first case, because they are everything, in the second, because they are all nothing.” (C. Montesquieu)