Hi. Help me please. Our team found itself in a difficult situation due to the epidemic. Your help will be our salvation. Thank you very much.
Donate
образование
Agreed!

Can the adjectives in the feminine to use with creatures in men(cm)?

45
The end of response\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\pitak, objective causes of errors made by native speakers in the combination of adjectives with nouns (in the incorrect use of feminine forms of adjectives with nouns of the male kind).\r\n\r\n\r\PSO time theoretical material on any subject is forgotten.\r ekotorymi the lexicographers attempted to classify words as masculine like a doctor, lawyer, etc. to nouns common kind. Over the last 8-10 years, for example, Kuznetsov has changed twice in his Big explanatory dictionary of the Russian language morphological notes to word doctor: initially stood by the letter m (masculine), and then suddenly it was replaced by m and W. (so in dictionaries denote common gender nouns), and now again fixed on M. Sorry, not made at the time the screenshot, but the word judge in the dictionary. gramota.ru still in the category of "unisex" (ie with labels m and W.), that is unacceptable, because this lexeme kind of male that it is noted by the authors-compilers of other dictionaries.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\veroyatno, under the influence of newfangled dictionaries that have not undergone the required expertise, some authors of school textbooks, the words of masculine with the value of the entity at the position ranked as the words of a General kind (scapegoats in this case were all the same doctor the judge, lawyer, along with all others), so some people at school are convinced that these lexemes have a common kind, therefore, adjectives can be used both in masculine and feminine depending on the sex of the object of speech.\r\PA under the influence of dupes in the schools former students and see errors in agreement of adjectives with nouns of masculine. These mistakes you learned on the incorrect textbooks, journalists, speakers, TV presenters, politicians, i.e. the people we constantly hear, and if so, then even those who are fortunate enough to study in good textbooks, which States that words of a General kind it is necessary to distinguish words of masculine with the value of the person by occupation, position, profession, and a good, thoughtful teachers who have not succumbed to the provocations of some scholars-lexicographers and authors of school textbooks are incorrect, the theory is forgotten, you begin to speak properly. And visual AIDS, compiled mindlessly, I assure them that they used wrong taking words like the author, an anesthesiologist, a writer for the words of men, but not the common kind.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\NIN the last example of incorrect visual AIDS, the verb wrote is not matched with the word masculine doctor, thoughtlessly added to the words of a General kind, and with the last name Ermolaeva, so even the use of past tense verbs with nouns of the type doctor if they denote females, this example does not illustrate. The word doctor in the proposal application, it distributes the subject Ermolaeva (what Ermolaeva? doctor) and has with them a dependent adjective, and if it did, it certainly must be in the masculine gender (experienced doctor Ermolaeva), as I repeat: in released masculine adjectives are put in the appropriate noun masculine.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\izbejat such errors can only be when all dictionaries, textbooks will undergo serious examination in the Russian language Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences when the authors-compilers of school textbooks and dictionaries, as before, will competent people, when all school teachers will be able to see the obvious mistakes made by the authors of textbooks. There is much to ponder and work with the ministries of education in plural form, as incorrect Russian language textbooks available today not only in Russia but also in the countries of the former Soviet Union.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\NIN conclusion about the word good. Most dictionaries give single article well done and well done. Only Ephraim and Ozhegova they are two different words – homonyms, more precisely, homographs, even though they are different interpretations of the lexical meaning of the lexeme done: Ephraim is unambiguous word Ozhegova still multivalue – he shares the words good and molodeet, like Ephraim, but, unlike her, save for the word good a value as "young man". With this, and I agree rather than with the recognition of the multivalued words with double stress for different values: one is on the first syllable, the other on the first and third, at the option of the speaker, for the third – only on the third. But not it, to analyze in detail the differences in the dictionaries. The main thing in another. Ephraim allocates in a separate homonym, and burns in a separate meaning of the word good, used in the expression of praise, approval of the actions of man. While Kuznetsov, who do not see here the homonyms, but indicate a separate meaning of the word with the accent on the last syllable an expression of praise, notes that it concerns both sexes, and cites examples:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\PTO is uses this praise as the word of a General kind.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\NIN other dictionaries is not specified on a common rod and are examples of combinations with the word well done or adjectives or pronouns-adjectives – their authors are limited to examples of the type of good girl. And yet in this case I agree with Kuznetsov: lexeme good, used to praise, perhaps, the one word a General kind, not specific to nouns of the 1st declension. This is evidenced by literary examples.
77
Answer add
To write questions and answers you need to register on the site

Other questions in the section - образование

Filimon
Zhimulad
Frol
Molsa
Mosey