Types of semantic relations between parts of complex proposals. The concept of a complex proposal. Semantic relationships in the SSP. Plan-abstract lesson in the Russian language (grade 9) on the topic. Graduation qualifying work
\u003e\u003e Russian language: semantic relationship between parts of a complex sentence. Punctuation marks between parts of a complex sentence. Generalization and systematization of the studied complex proposal
Semantic relationships between parts of a complex proposal. Punctuation marks between parts of a complex sentence. Generalization and systematization of the studied complex proposal There are certain semantic relationships between parts of the complex supply. In complex suggestions - simultaneity or sequence of events, mutually exclusion, opposition. In complex proposals, the pressing part may indicate the cause, the conditions, the purpose of the events referred to in the main sentence.
Sent to readers from Internet sites
Collection of abstract lessons in all classes, Russian language download, online library on the jump free, textbooks and books in all subjects, ready homework
In the SSP, the components are linearly assumed and do not vary their positions relative to each other, they are functionally equal. SSP is characterized by an extensive system of values, in the formation of which, in addition to writing unions, some parties of the structure of the combined parts and the typed elements of their lexical composition are involved. Especially a large load falls on the ratio of grammatical and lexico-grammatical categories of verbs-taut (time, inclination, view, method of action) and lexical determinants of the verbal sign (adverbs, particles, modal words, interjections), many of which are easily combined with writing alliances, By forming unstable union compounds with them: and so, so, and therefore, and yet, but after all, well, and therefore, but then, and then, but only etc.
Essay (parataxis, coordination) - the syntactic relationship of grammatically equal units of the language, which has its own system of means of expression (writing alliances).
Complex offer - This is a complex proposal, grammatically equal predicative parts of which are connected by writing. Predicative parts of the SSP compared to the NGN are more independent, free, more similar to simple proposals. But their autonomy is relative, because They do not possess intonational and semantic completeness. Parts of the SSP to one degree or another are interconnected. In some SSP, at the beginning of the first part, there is a general component (determinant), the presence of which causes even a closer connection of parts, indicates a greater implacability of the second part.
Types of complex offers.Types of SSP are highlighted by means of syntax and by nature of relations between parts.
According to the type of structure and by the nature of the semantic relationship between parts allocate:
1) SSP with connecting relations between parts (means of communication - writing connecting unions: and, yes (in meaning and), also, also nor ...);
2) SSP with separation relations between parts (means of communication - writing dividing unions: or, either, then ... then, not that ... not that, or if if, whether ... Lee, Lee ... or);
3) SSP with comparative relationships between parts (means of communication - writing configuration unions: a, but yes (in meaning but), however, but);
4) SSP with explanatory relationship between parts (means of communication - writing explanatory unions: namely, that is);
5) SSP with gradual relations between parts (means of communication - writing gradation unions: not only ... but, not so much ... how much, not that ... but, not that ... and other).
These types of SSP can be combined into wider discharges based on the openness / closedness of the structure. Offers open structurethey are an unclosed series, parts in them are sitting in them, usually have the importance of simultaneity. These include proposals with connecting and dividing relations between parts. Offers closed structure represent a closed row. These are two parts that are associated semantically and structurally; The second part closes a number and does not imply the presence of a third part. The SSP closed structure includes proposals with comparative, explanatory and gradual relations between parts. The closeness of the structure is observed under the connecting relations if the SSP is a combination of contrast or efficient parts. This indicates that the openness / closing of the structure is not so much with the nature of the Union, as with the semantic-structural interconnected parts.
Complex proposals of an open structure with connecting relationships between parts.Connecting relationships are a relationship of logical homogeneity (listing). In a temporary plan, this is a relationship of simultaneity or following. Communication facilities: and, yes (in meaning and), neither ... neither, too, also.
The most common and universal communication means is the Union and. Suggestions with this union have the following main values:
a) simultaneity: about senya gold leaves and blue sky.
b) Corollary : He became annoying, and he began to drum on the door.
c) result or rapid change of events : In the spring, windows open - and noise is broken into the room.
Offers with Soyuz no no have the importance of mutually computation, with alliances too, also - Combine a connecting value with an attachment.
Complex proposals of an open structure with separation relations between parts.The separation relationship includes a consistent change, alternation of events and phenomena, transfer of mutually exclusive events and phenomena. Means of communication: or (il), or, then ... then, not that ... not that if ... or whether ... Lee, Lee ... or.
Soyuz orit is stylistically neutral and contributes to the proposal value of mutual computiation : Or now you dress up, or I go alone. Soyuz or(talk.) can be repeated or solitary : Or the Arkan on the neck, or a bullet in the back of the head.Unions lee ... Lee, Lee ... or The value of the transfer of mutually exclusive events. Unions then ... then, not that ... not that, then if ... eitherimplement the importance of mutual exclusion without additional shades or with a touch of assumption : Whether the sky is distant Sinée, or the haze stifles eyes).
Complex proposals of a closed structure with comparative relationships between parts.The comparative relationship includes the value of the proprietary, opposing, as well as the value of inconsistencies. Means of communication: a, but, however, yes (in meaning but), but, but then, and not, but also, and therefore, but.
Soyuz butexpresses the value from the properly comparable to the value of the inconsistency : It scolds, and he rejoices. Soyuz but expresses opposition, union yes (in meaning but) - Additional shade of jointing, union same – comparison and compatibility. By function samesimilar to but,but it is located Samein the second part of the SSP, after the proposal made to the first place, which the logical emphasis falls: Comrades treated him disliked, the soldiers loved truly. With union a, but yesnumerous lexical specitizers can be used, which enhance the value of comparison, or inconsistencies, give the suggestion of the ledge, spending, etc. In the function of means of communication for the design of various shades, adverbs, particles, introductory words and a variety of combinations can be used.
A special group make up the SSP with alternative unions atom, and not that is not . They transmit the value of special opposition - with a shade of convention. The second part in such proposals indicates the possible consequences of non-compliance with what is said in the first part: You must talk to your father today, otherwise he will worry. Alternative unions are peculiar to spoken speech. They transmit values \u200b\u200bclose to words otherwise, otherwisewhich often accompany these unions or are independently used as binding elements of a complex offer.
Complex proposals of a closed structure with explanatory relations between parts.In sentences with explanatory relations, the second part is attached to the first explanatory connecting unions. namely, thenthere is. The second part clarifies, reveals the content of the first, therefore there is a kind of semantic parallelism. The first part ends before the union of substantive voice and the pause. Soyuz namelymakes a refinement, is used in book speech . Soyuz i.e Also introduces the value of clarification, the second part of these SSPs has the character of the amendment, reservations: Nobody smiled at Natasha's words, that is, the joke was not understood.
Complex proposals with these unions are used rarely. For expressing explanatory relationships, non-union designs are more often used.
Complex proposals of a closed structure with gradual relations between parts.SPEs may pass on special gradation ratios, i.e. strengthening, increasing or, on the contrary, weakening the significance of the second component of the offer compared to the first. Such values \u200b\u200bare expressed by unions not only ... But, not so much ... how much, not that ... But, although ... but. All unions are double, and the first part of the Union is placed at the beginning of the first part of the SSP, and the second part of the Union - at the beginning of the second part: It not that cruel but He is too active in nature (L.T.).The dismemberment of the Union, the location of its components in different parts of the sentence is closely associated with these parts into a single integer.
Zbrodko Victoria Georgievna
Maou "Secondary School №110"
Russian language and literature teacher
Russian language
Grade 9.
Russian lesson is compiled for distance learning
Basic textbook:1. Russian. Grade 9 [text]: studies. For 9 cl. Education. Education / L. A. Tostentsova [et al.] -5th ed. - M.: Enlightenment, 2013.
Goal | Create conditions for familiarization with the concept of a complex proposal as an independent one-piece syntactic unit;his kinds; Promoting the formation of skills to determine the semantic relationship between parts of the complex proposal and knowledge of students on the formulation of punctuation marks between parts of a complex proposal. |
Goal | Get acquainted with the concept of a complex proposal as an independent one-piece syntactic unit; with his kinds; Learn to determine the semantic relationship between parts of the SSP, to know about the correct formulation of punctuation marks and apply these knowledge in practice. |
Type of lesson | ABOUT tanking of new knowledge |
Planned | Subject: know the basic concepts of the topic; To be able to identify the types of proposals, the semantic relationship between parts of a complex proposal, transform information: proposal - scheme; to formulate your own point of view on the problem set during the study of the material, argue it. MetaPered: regulatory URU - to determine the purpose of learning activities and to look for funds for its implementation; cognitive URU - to find answers using the information obtained; communicative Wood - be able to make up their thoughts in oral speech, the ability to cooperate. Personal: have a motivation to knowledge, study. |
M. etody and forms | practical; individual |
Educational | http://interneturok.ru/ , http://fcior.edu.ru. , http://www.videouroki.net. |
Equipment | MacBook WHITE 2.4, Headphones Dialog M-781HV, Microphone Logitech USB Desktop Microphone, Canyon CNR-WCAM820 webcam, material on the topic "Difference Offer" for Team Viewer |
Maintenance | Complex proposals, semantic relationships. |
ABOUT ranisational structure of the lesson
Didactic structure of the lesson | Teacher's activities | Activity | Tasks that will lead to the achievement of planned results | Planned results (Wood) |
I. Organizational stage | Greeting, checking training for training session, organization of attention. | Welcomes demonstrates readiness for the lesson. | L.: Formation of emotional attitude to lesson R.: Self Control K.: Readiness for educational cooperation P. Self-determination |
|
II. Setting the purpose and tasks of the lesson. Motivation of training activities | 1. The reader offers the task "Third Extra" Team Viewer and questions. 2. What questions caused difficulty, why? 3. Invites the topic and objectives of the lesson. | 1. Fill the task. 2. Refines the difficulties. 3. Together with the teacher formulates the theme and objectives of the lesson, writes the subject of the lesson in the notebook. | The task "Third wheel" 1. On the way in the wilderness there is a valley. 2. He also retained his form, but no longer smells. 3. Dew Cold, and Fresh Wind Day Uses Summer Fire. 2. Employments: Call the difference of a simple proposal from complex What are the main types of complex proposals? What is a complex proposal? What semantic relationships can be between parts of the SSP | R.: Setting the goal of educational activities, choosing a method and means of its implementation |
III. Actualization of knowledge | Offers to make the analysis of proposals. Team Viewer. Offers to make a SSP scheme | Comments on the production punctuation signs. Makes the analysis of proposals. Makes the SPP scheme | The conversation seemed to him (Pierra) is interesting, and he stopped expressing his thoughts.L. Tolstoy. Dunya sat down into a kibitka near the hussar, the servant jumped on the iris, the yamper whistled, the horses crushed. A. Pushkin. In silence, he was clearly heard, as a moaned man. | P.: Performs universal logic actions (analysis) systematizes their own knowledge; R.: Controls learning actions, notices the mistakes made and corrects them; K.: Experts his opinion, knows how to listen to the teacher. |
IV. Primary learning of new knowledge | Offers Listen to a fragment (03.25 min.) Video Tutorial Mikhailova E.V.http://interneturok.ru/, Then perform the work according to the scheme of the "variety of semantic relations between the parts of the SSP" (p.37) and the further comparison of the work performed with the theoretical material of the textbook. | Listens, performs work according to the scheme "The species of semantic relationship between parts of the SSP" compares. | 1. That fell as if fog, then suddenly I absorbed oblique rain. 2. On the sun, I am not visible to the light, nor for the roots of my protrusion is not. 3. Not only children love computer games, but adults are often fond of them. 4. Or I will arrange everything, either I am a call to a duel. 5. A cricket cracked in the corner behind the ovens, but a peculiar spring voice of the brine was coming out. 6. Song over the house of the Smallkla, but above the straw pond started his own. | P.: Ability to convert information from one form to another; TO.: ask questions to obtain the information necessary to solve the problem. L.: Realizes its capabilities in teaching; |
V. Primary inspection check | 1. Contains independent work with the textbook p.37 UPR. 62 (Railway.1, 4, 5) | Performs, assesses with the help of a teacher. | P. 37 UPR.62. (SELECT.1,45) | P.: Modeling actions that make a display of educational material, forming knowledge generalization; R.: Oriented in the textbook; When performing practical work. |
V. Primary fixing | It offers to insert unions, note which semantic relationships they express. | Performs, notes. | 1. It was not enough to hear ... Zelers of the bell, ... the knock of the wheels on a silicon road, ... The pale old old man still stood on the same place in deep thoughtfulness. A. Pushkin. | P.: Processing information to obtain the desired result. L.: Explains herself "what I can". |
Vi. Information about the homework, instructing it. | Informs about the homework: textbook, p.37 (theoretical information), work with a practical task. | Specifies clarifying questions. | Practical task (see application). | |
V. Results lesson. Reflection | Offers answering questions. | Replies | - What was the goal? - Did it manage to solve it? - Where can I apply new knowledge? - What kind of work did you like? | P.: Oriented in its knowledge system - distinguishes new from the already known. R.: Control and evaluation of the process and performance L.: Adequate understanding of success or failure to K.: Ability with sufficient completeness and accuracy to express your thoughts. |
Attachment 1.
The task: Arctize punctuation marks, make the analysis of proposals.
- The conversation seemed to him (Pierra) is interesting and he stopped expressing his thoughts. (L. Tolstoy.)
- Dunya sat down into a kibituum near the hussar servant jumped on the iriser whistling horses rocked. (A. Pushkin.)
- In silence, he was clearly heard as a moaned man.
Appendix 2.
The task: expand punctuation signs, determine the semantic relationship according to the scheme in the textbook.
1. It fell as if the fog, then suddenly let out oblique rain.
2. On the sun, I am not visible, the light is neither for the roots of my protrusion.
3. Not only children love computer games, but adults are often fond of them.
4. Or I will arrange everything still either I am on a duel challenge.
5. In the corner behind the stove cracks the cricket yes, a peculiar spring voice of the brine was coming out.
6. The song over the house of the Smallklo But over the Stolov Pond started his own.
Appendix 3.
The task : insert unions, note what semantic relationships they express
1. It was no longer heard ... Iron Bells, ... a knock of the wheels on a silicon road, ... The pale old man still standing on the same
place in deep thoughtfulness.
2. But the sleepy silence descends on the Tabor, ... heard in the silence of night only Lai dogs, ... Horses Rzhanye.
A. Pushkin.
Appendix 4. ( homework)
The task: Write proposals by placing punctuation marks. Determine which complex suggestions here
Presented. Create diagrams.
1) He never cried but at times he found wild stubbornness on him.
2) The sun shone and the steppe smoked and glistened.
3) I was terribly sad in this moment however, something like a laughter moved to my soul.
4) then she came to the thought of jumping on the ramp and disappeared by Aria, then she wanted to hook a fan not far from her who was sitting old.
5) I liked it more and more I, too, apparently, was sympathetic to her.
6) Comrades belonged to him dislikes, soldiers loved truly.
7) And the air becomes sweeter and gave a friendly and people with mille and life easier.
8) Only the heart knocks and the song sounds yes quietly rolling strings.
9) The sun rolled out and the night followed the day without a gap.
10) To the nearest village there was still a vest of ten and a large dark lite cloud, who took God knows from where, quickly moved to us.
Complex sentences - These are sentences consisting of several simple.
The main means of communication of simple proposals in complex are intonation, alliances (writing and subordinates) and allied words (relative pronouns and primegable).
Depending on the means of communication, complex offers are divided into allied and nessuzny. Union proposals are divided into complexed and complexed.
Complexed Offers (SSP) are complex proposals in which simple proposals are associated with each other intonation and writing unions.
Types of complex proposals for the nature of the Union and the meaning
| Type of SP. | Unions | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 1. connecting unions (Connecting relationships). | AND; Yes (in meaning and); no no; Yes, and; also; also; not only but. |
Opened the door, and the air from the yard rolled into the kitchen (POUST). |
| 2. Certain offers S. interconnected unions (Compact relationship). | BUT; but; Yes (in meaning but); but (in meaning but); but; but; And that; not that; and not that; Same particle (in the meaning of the Union but); particle only (in the meaning of the Union but). |
Ivan Petrovich gone, and I stayed (Leskov). |
| 3. Certain offers S. separate alliances (dividing relationship). | Or; or; not that ..., not that; then ..., then; Either ..., either. |
Either fish eat either stranded (proverb). |
Note!
1) Writing alliances can associate not only parts of a complex proposal, but also homogeneous members. Their distinction is especially important for the alignment of punctuation marks. Therefore, when parsing, be sure to highlight the grammatical foundations to determine the type of sentence (simple with homogeneous members or a complex offer).
Wed: From the smoke hole, a man and a lot of large sturgeon walked (Sands) - a simple sentence with homogeneous faithful; Money ladies on the road and the helicopter can cause (Sands) - a complex proposal.
2) Writing unions usually occupy a place at the beginning of the second part (the second simple sentence).
In some way Danube serves as a border, but he serves and dear People to each other (Sands).
The exclusion is the unions, too, also, union particles, only. They necessarily occupy or can take a seat in the middle of the second part (the second simple sentence).
My sister and I cried, mother also cried (Aksakov); Comrades treated him disliked, the soldiers loved truly (Kuprin).
Therefore, when parsing, such complex offers are often confused with non-union complex suggestions.
3) Double Union is not only ..., but also expresses gradation relations and in school textbooks are attributed to the connecting unions. Very often, when analyzing, only his second part is taken into account ( but also) And mistakenly refer to the oppositional unions. In order not to make a mistake, try replacing this double union union and.
Wed: Language should be not only clear or simple, but also language must be good (L. Tolstoy). - Language must be understandable or common, and language must be good.
4) By meaning, complex offers are very diverse. Quite often they are close in value to complex proposals.
Wed: You will leave - and it will become dark (Shefner). - If you leave, it will become dark; I did not eat anything, but I did not feel hunger (Tenryakov). - Although I did not eat anything, I did not feel hunger.
However, when parsing is not taken into account, this is not the specific value, and the value due to the type of writing union (connecting, interpreting, separation).
Notes. In some textbooks and manuals, complex suggestions include complex suggestions with explanatory unions. that is, namely, eg: The Board authorized him to speed up the work, that is, in other words, he emphasized himself to this (Kurpros); Bird flights produced as an adaptive instinctive act, namely: it gives birds ability to avoid Unfavorable conditions for winter (Sands). Other researchers relate them to complex proposals or allocate in an independent type of complex proposals. Part of the proposals with particles only, refer to non-union proposals.
Complex offer 1. Structural and semantic signs of complex proposals. 2. Types of SSP. The role of writing alliances in the formation of semantic relations between the predicative parts.
The definition of a complex proposal is called complex suggestions, parts of which are connected by writing alliances and grammatically depend on each other, i.e. are in relations equality, equivalent. Example: Autumn came, and the leaves on the trees are wishes.
Writing alliances of the union in the SSP are the same as for homogeneous members, the semantic relationships also mainly coincide (connecting, gradation, interconnecting, dividing, connecting, explanatory).
Additional shades of the relationship between predicative units in a complex proposal are acquired by some additional shades due to the nature of the united parts. The bright luxury of the southern nature did not touch the old man, but a lot of Delighted Sergey, who was here for the first time (Kuprin). (Between parts of the confiracy-index relationship)
The structural unity of the complex proposal is the structural unity of various SSPs, which is created by intonation and allied means, not the same. If a double gradation union is used in a complex proposal not only, but or or repeated unions. . . No, not that. . Not that, it functions as a whole that cannot be disdable to the components of predicative units with the same value, for example, it was not the earlier morning, it was not the evening.
The independence of the parts in the SSP is the least noticeable connection between parts in the joint venture with connecting relations transmitted by single alliances, such a joint venture can easily be dissected for 2 separate independent statements. A fog rose above the river, and the sad white horse drowned in it on the chest (goats "Hedgehog in the fog")
The structural-semantic unity of the SSP is supported: lexical elements that perform the role of crash elements (plain adhesives: therefore, because of the introductory words: therefore, it means; particles: all the same, yet, after all, it's still); The presence of a total secondary member in 1 part of the total minor member, and in 2 - pronouns and placed laws in anaphoric function.
2nd. Types of complex proposals. The role of writing unions in the formation of semantic relations between parts The classification of complex proposals is traditionally built on the basis of differences in their common grammatical values \u200b\u200b(the most common semantic relations between the predicative parts). Further differentiation is carried out in accordance with the values \u200b\u200bof individual groups of unions.
SSP 1. With the connecting unions (and, yes, nor ... neither, also, not only ... but also) 4. With explanatory unions (that is, namely) 2. With the opponent unions (but, and, however , but,) 5. With connecting unions (and, moreover) 3. With separation unions (or, or, then ... then, not ... not that)
1. Complex proposals with connecting unions between parts are possible: connecting and lifesive relationships; Connecting relationships; Connectivity relationships; Conditional relations; Connecting identification relations
Complex proposals with connecting and transfer relations in these proposals The value of homogeneity is expressed in the transfer of the same type of events, situations and is issued by the connecting unions, for example: the sky has dreamed increasingly, and it seemed that the land (Rasputin) was deeper.
Shades of connecting relations simultaneity (two actions occur at the same time) transmitted by coincidence of the time forms of the verbs of the imperfect species (tag) - in parts included in the complex. The herd has not yet been drunk, and the people have not returned from work. The sequence of actions or events is expressed by the order of parts and verbs of the perfect species (led) in parts of the sentence. The last reflections of the evening dawn went out at all, and the dark night went down to the ground.
Complex proposals with connecting and distribution relationships in these proposals The second part contains some new information related to the event concluded in the first part, therefore, there are usually anaphoric pronouns indicating some subject, a person, a sign that The first part says. Bright curtains hung in the room, and it became as if spacious. For an instant, she was embarrassed, and it was surprisingly changed her face.
Complex proposals with connecting and effective relationships The second part of these proposals expresses the result (or a consequence, or output), which is due to the content of the first part. There was a wonder, the day is lean, and therefore the grandmother was leaning for a lean borsch and bream with porridge (Aksakov). The river completely was listed with the fin, and, therefore, it was possible to freely move from one shore to another (Arsenyev) everywhere.
Complex proposals with conventional relations in scientific speech are possible complex proposals with convention relations. Summate Create Relevant Conditions, and you will detect the life of plants.
Complex proposals with connecting and identified relationships in these proposals between actions and signs of persons and subjects referred to in the first and in the second part, identity is established. People are very tired, horses also needed rest (Arsenyev). The moon rose strongly bug and frowning, the stars also frowned (Chekhov). The daughter studied at home and grew well, the boy also studied thumbs up (L. Tolstoy).
Complex proposals with connecting gradual relations of gradation unions, connecting two phenomena, indicate that when they comparison, the speaker considers the second phenomenon more important. Not only Sonya without paint could not stand this glance, but also the old Countess and Natasha blushed, noticing this look (L. Tolstoy)
2. Complex proposals with conversational unions These proposals are divided into two groups: 1) with comparative relationships between parts; 2) with interpreting relationships. 1) With comparative relationships (alliances, and the same) phenomena, the facts referred to in parts, do not exclude a friend, but no matter how coexist. Stupid condemnation, and clever judgment
Complex proposals with oppositional unions 2) in proposals with interpretation relationships are allocated to stand-restrictive, permitting and permanent and adversary shades. With a standpoint restrictive relationship (unions, however, yes) reported such phenomena, events, one of which (second) limits the manifestation of the first, prevents him from or clarifies it, refuting into some part. The boy still wanted to know, but he did not dare to ask.
Complex proposals with interpretation unions Compact relationships may be complicated by a granting value (one phenomenon was to call another, but did not cause; it should have prevented another, but did not prevent). They contribute to the identification of the relations of the particle of all the same, yet, it is still, meanwhile, with all the time. I had my own room in my house, but I lived on the courtyard in Hibarke (Chekhov)
Complex proposals with oppositional unions in proposals with oppositional relations (alliances but, but, however), a phenomenon is considered from different parties, while one of them is most often assessed as negative, and the second is both positive. The Union is based on its semantics that the event 2 compensates for the Event 2, relieves the negative consequences of the events of the first part. Song over the house of Smallkla, but above the straw pond started his (Korolenko).
3. Difficult proposals with separation unions in these proposals are expressed by relations 1) of mutually exclusion or 2) alternations. 1) in sentences with unions or (il), or, not that ... Not that, or whether the relationship of mutually surveys are expressed (the content of the first part of these proposals excludes the content of the second). Or I do not understand, or you do not want to understand me (Chekhov). Whether the rustle of the chalk, the breeze thrills, whether it strokes the hair of a warm hand (Surkov).
Complex proposals with separation unions 2) in proposals with a repeated union, then ... The events referred to in parts exist in different time plans, i.e. alternate. It is painted in the green groves of cuckoo, then over the ropes lasted loudly, drowning the nightingale.
4. Difficult proposals with explanatory unions in these proposals (with alliances namely, that is, it clarifies the second part with the help of the second part, reveals the content of the first part. On June 12, the forces of Western Europe crossed the borders of Russia and the war began, that is, a nasty human reason and the whole human nature (L. Tolstoy) was committed.
5. Difficult proposals with connecting unions in sentences with alliances and, and also that, and more so, and therefore, connectivity arises: the second part of the sentence arises as it were during the speech process itself, sometimes particles, adveria, pronoun (and Here, and moreover, and therefore, after that). With the ladies, I was shy, timid, did not know how to talk with them, and nothing to talk about (Chekhov).
