What is the correct way: “to put on” or “to put on”? Examples of spelling words in a sentence

Many people do not see the difference in which verb to use in a particular context - "to wear" or "to put on". Many even believe that no rules, explanations or clarifications are 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.

Ushakov's dictionary on the verbs "to put on" and "to put on"

In the "Explanatory Dictionary" of Ushakov, the following explanations of the verb "dress" are given:

1. To dress - to clothe someone or something in some kind of clothing. For example: “Dress the artists in fancy dress”.
2. To dress means to cover or wrap up with something for warmth. For example, dress a horse with a blanket, dress a sick person with a blanket.
3. In a figurative sense, “to clothe” means to envelop, cover, envelop. Examples are figurative expressions-metaphors: "Winter covered the whole earth with snow" or "Trees covered the meadow with lacy shadows."
4. To dress in the broadest sense of the word means to provide someone with clothing, to help in the acquisition of all kinds of garments. For example: "She tried so hard to dress her family that she worked tirelessly."

Ushakov writes about the verb “put on”:

1. Put on - pull on, cover, pull on clothes, a piece of clothing or a blanket, a blanket, a cloth in order to hide from the cold, rain or wind, or to hide, to hide nakedness. Examples: "Once it started raining, don't forget to put on a hood!"
2. To put on - to put something on something. "Petrovich put the duck on a spit - and on the fire, let it be reddened better!"

Figurative meaning of the verb "put on"

Some linguists argue that the word “put on” is not as ambiguous as its paronym “put on”. Like, it defines only specific actions, but in a figurative sense it is impossible to use it.

However, this is not entirely true. The verb "to put on" can be part of a metaphor expression when there is an animation or transfer of human actions to it.

Examples are the following sentences: "The birches put on their earrings, as if maidens for marriage" or "He put on a sheepskin coat made of snow, an oak, like an old grandfather, stands to itself, creaks."

Turning to Rosenthal

At school, teachers explain the use of “dress” and “put on” based on the following explanations of Rosenthal: they dress someone (or something, for example, a doll, a corpse, a stuffed animal) in something or something, and put on something. then on someone.

That is, you can dress or dress a son in a jacket, a bride in a wedding dress, a hand with a glove. But you can put something on someone or something: a jacket for a son, a wedding dress for a bride, a glove for a hand. There is even a hint phrase: "The grandfather is dressed, the sheepskin coat is on."

Antonyms to 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.

The word with the opposite meaning of the verb “to put on” is the action “to undress”, and the opposite of the verb “to put on” is “to take off”. Since the phrase "undress a coat" is meaningless, it is naturally impossible to put on a coat.

In the same way, you can make the right choice between two expressions: "wear glasses" or "wear glasses". Can I strip my glasses? Of course not! Therefore, the second option should be considered correct - to put on glasses.

It is with this explanation that most modern people are content, considering it the easiest and most correct.

Semantic confusion

As such, the use of the verbs “to put on” or “to put on” most often does not confuse 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 the hand.

A suggestion to wear a parsley doll would mean that the doll should be dressed up in new clothes: a new hat, a cape, or 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 "to put on" or "to put on" radically changes the meaning of what was said.

The same can occur 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, adolescents in all ages were distinguished by nihilism. Most are enthusiastic about all the generally accepted rules. And, of course, they are trying to prove that the words “dress” and “put on” are practically the same, so there is no point in figuring out which one should be used in a particular case.

In the classroom, the teacher has to be an artist, a storyteller, be able to masterfully conduct a discussion, select irrefutable evidence, logically prove the need to know the rules of the Russian language. And he also needs to be ... a humorist.

After all, humor is probably the most powerful weapon against ignorance. And even if the situation told by the teacher will not be very believable, but its imagery will leave a "nick" in the minds forever. Thanks to the funny "picture" created by the fantasy 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 items of clothing, it can still carry the meaning of “putting on”, for example, on a skewer or a lance. The story, which will make children laugh and remain in their memory, is just based on this polysemy of the verb “put on”.

At one of the student picnics, there was a young man in the company who understood everything literally. His name was Hernando, he was Mexican. The guys decided to cook chicken on a skewer.

As the fire blazed merrily in the fire, the person in charge of preparing the treat said to Hernando: "Dress the chicken - here's a skewer!" The guy to whom the request was made nodded his head and walked away from the fire to the table where raw food lay.

He was absent for a long time. But when he returned with a chicken in his hands, the friendly laughter just blew up the neighborhood! The chicken was wearing a leather cap, her waist was adorned with a skirt with straps - a kind of sundress made from a chiffon scarf of one of the flirty 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 absolutely precisely: to dress a chicken means to dress it in some kind of outfit. He 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 at them. For example, on Christmas carols, people dress up in the skins of various animals, and they decorate a Christmas tree for the New Year. Maybe there is some other custom when you need to dress up the chicken before roasting it?

An ironic illustration of the rules helps you memorize better

By the way, after such a funny story, the teacher can present the children with pictures with captions: one drawing, which depicts a "smart" chicken, and below it the phrase: "Dress the chicken in clothes", and the second drawing with a carcass on a skewer, under which it is written: " Put the chicken on a skewer. "

After such a humorous and visual impact, the guys will never confuse what to say: “wear” or “wear”. A dress on a chicken, a cap and sneakers - this picture will be remembered for sure!

When do we say dressed?

So it's time to deal with the definitions formed from verbs. It should be remembered that the verb “clothe” is used only in relation to animate objects or inanimate, but having human characteristics (corpse, doll, stuffed animal, mannequin). As mentioned above, sometimes this verb appears in metaphors with animate objects of inanimate nature - the abilities of living beings are attributed to them.

Consequently, the word "dressed" can also serve as a definition of only a living being or animated by human fantasy. A clothed man, a clothed lady, houses wearing snow caps are examples of how the word “clothed” is used.

Although in fairy tales, heroes (objects that come to life inanimate in ordinary life) can be dressed: this is a table, and a bed, and other things.

"The table, dressed in a festive tablecloth, proudly looked at its neighbors" or "Dressed in an elegant frame, a photograph of her father, hitherto gathering dust in the closet, was extremely happy with these changes in her fate."

"Wearing a glove", "wearing a glove" - ​​how is it correct?

In relation to inanimate objects, the definition of "worn" should be used. That is, a suit cannot be dressed, but only worn. The same applies to the words "glasses", "skirt", "coat", "hat" and others, denoting the items that are worn.

The glove example can be used in class to explain the semantic difference between the definitions of “dressed” and “wearing”. For better memorization, you can provide the students with pictures with captions. And one of them will be reliable - with the signature "wearing a glove." But the picture signed with the phrase "wearing a glove" will be humorous - there is a hat and a scarf on the glove, or rather, on one of her fingers.

The phrase “dressed glove” can exist only in a fairy tale or a fantastic story, where an accessory comes to life, can dress up, talk, think. For example, some ladies wear rings over their gloves. And such a fantastic plot 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 gold belt adorned with a diamond, taunts his sister, who "is forced to go out into the world naked." This story may end with the mistress losing one glove - the one that was “undressed”. The "rich glove" is happy - now she will no longer tolerate this annoying beggar next to her! However, misfortune awaits her: the hostess, discovering the loss and burning out, throws out a stupid asshole in the trash.