Not the same. How to spell "too"

The spelling of this difficult moment is completely dependent on the context, so each spelling of "SAME" or "SAME" should be considered and checked separately.

Literacy on "5"

• try replace "also" with "also". If this can be done without loss of meaning, you have a union that is written only together. Example: I won't go to the gym either. Did you also go to the cinema yesterday? We didn't find what we were looking for either.
• if after "the same" you can insert the word "same", so you have to write separately. Example: I see the same picture as my friend. I will do the same as my classmates. We tried to find the same institution on the Internet. In all cases, "most" can be inserted without prejudice to the sentence.

Semantic load

The variant "the same" answers the question "what?", in most cases, after separate spelling, the word "what" occurs. The union "too" cannot answer the question, it serves to denote equality or equivalence.

Important: there is one more trick that allows you to determine the correct spelling of this complex case: try to omit the particle "same", if this is easy, that is, the sentence remains concise and literate, which means separate writing is provided. Example: I also want ice cream (cannot be omitted). Mom screamed the same as yesterday (what yesterday).

Hello! In all the answers to questions about discrepancies in the rules of Russian spelling and punctuation of 1956 and 2006, you say that new words appear, the spelling of which was not taken into account in an earlier edition, and one cannot but agree with this, but the discrepancies in the "Rules" are available not only in the "Spelling" section, but also in "Punctuation" too. For example, the new edition says that definitions are not isolated if they come after negative, indefinite, demonstrative, definitive pronouns and form a single semantic group with them, and in the 1956 edition, not a word is said about the relationship of these pronouns with definitions. So, please answer this question: when checking the Total Dictation, what will you consider correct - a definitive phrase separated by commas after such a pronoun or not highlighted? Don't you think that "single semantic group" is a somewhat vague concept. One of your dictators will pause in one place and the writers will decide that this is a single semantic group, and the other will pause in another place and everyone who listens to him will feel that the attributive phrase has a clarifying meaning. and separate it with commas. The same thing, by the way, can be said about the "consequential shade" of the attributive phrase. So what are your evaluation criteria?

Good afternoon!
I was completely confused with conjugation, and I am surprised that there were no questions about this at school and institute. And now I can’t figure it out with my son (grade 6).
The verb LIVE according to the rule from the textbook should refer to the 2nd conjugation (all verbs in it, except for shaving, laying), and it is clearly the 1st conjugation!
Also beat himself, pour, howl, and so on.
It looks like the rule is greatly curtailed and it is not clear how then to define conjugations.
I advise my son to now conjugate the verb in the plural THEY LIVE and at the end determine that this is 1 conjugation.
On Wikipedia, I found a more complete rule, and all these verbs are listed there - and it turns out that there are not 11 exception verbs at all, but much more - it is simply impossible to learn them. So why are children forced to learn a truncated rule that does not stand up to scrutiny. And how does the verb LIVE, SLEEP (according to rule 1, according to life 2), SOUND, TREAT, etc. come across? - what should a child do on a test, how to determine conjugation?
And horror also arises with differently conjugated verbs - where is their list, except for running and wanting. Poor children - a complete mess in my head! Can you please tell me how to arrange this mess?

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

Dear Diploma!
Thanks for the quick reply, but... it PUZZLED me a bit.
1. The correct design you provided does not fit well into the post title:
a. due to the bulkiness (length) of such a design;
b. due to the small width of the post itself.
Here is an example of how such headers would look like:
1 post: 1st answer out of 3. A WOMAN IS BEST FRIEND…
2nd post: 2nd answer out of 3. A WOMAN IS BEST FRIEND…
3rd post: 3rd answer out of 3. WOMAN IS BEST FRIEND…
Now on my vlog it looks like this:
1 post: 1of3 WOMAN IS BEST FRIEND…
2 post: 2 of 3 WOMAN IS BEST FRIEND…
3 post: 3 of 3 WOMAN IS BEST FRIEND…
2. While reading the answers on your site, I recently began to think that writing “1st answer” is incorrect, but “1 answer” is correct. What I misunderstood - please explain?
QUESTION: Is this design acceptable: 1 out of 3. A WOMAN IS BEST FRIEND... (I had difficulty putting both quotation marks and a question mark). The use of "caps" (writing in capital letters), as far as I know, is NOT regulated in the Russian language, which means ... DOES NOT contradict it. Maybe the same situation with the construction of "1 out of 3.". If I'm wrong, correct me.
To further clarify my NEED to use related post titles, just type “bodybuilding” in Google and my blog will be on the top line (same nickname; you can do the same in YouTube search).
I will be grateful for your answer.

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

Of course, a more concise way of design is also possible. For example, you can use a slash: 1/3, 2/3.

My colleague wrote together the SAME where it should have been written separately the SAME:
"Are you suggesting that the Russians do the same thing themselves?"
In addition, in the genitive case in the word genetics, I put E instead of I at the end (... because of genetics). I can not prove to him even with quotes from the Internet that he is wrong.
He links to your site, which means he trusts.
Please help guide him on the right path. Thanks, Oleg Kryuk.

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

1. Same. Here that is a pronoun. Wed: the same.

2. Due to genetics. Genitive case: why?

Hello! I kindly ask you to resolve the dispute at work. I believe that it is correct to write "according to the order from ....", and not "according to the order". After all, we ask the question "according to what." The same thing here itself - "according to the order, resolution, contract (and not contract A)", etc. They object to me, referring to some special business language. They say that between the words ACCORDINGLY and ORDER, the word is implied. For example ACCORDING to the articles of the ORDER. But in this case, the question changes by the way, so "according to the articles of the order" is the correct spelling.

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

The literary norm is unambiguous: in accordance with an order, contract, ordinance.

how to write a USB cable, together, through a hyphen or separately? also the USB port itself?
how to write stereo headphones, stereo system, together or separately?

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

Correctly: USB cable, USB port, stereo headphones, stereo system.

Hello!
I decided to test myself with A.P.'s dictation. Chekhov's Death of an Official. In the second sentence of the proposed text, I inserted the letter B in the word feeling-val. In the last sentence in the same word, he also did it himself. But when checking, in the last sentence, my "felt" was corrected to "chU-STvoval." Why? What is the difference between this word in the second sentence and in the last one?

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

Correctly: felt in all cases. It is very strange that the dictation program did not count the correct option. Now we checked: everything is correct in the dictation code, the variant is proposed as the correct one felt.

The bearer of the surname (if I may say so) "Butnik" claims that his surname does not decline in cases. Is he right? By the way, he also claims the same about the surname Kress (Michelle Kress - male). Thanks for the answer. Cheledkova I.M.

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

This is not true. According to the norms of Russian grammar, all male surnames ending in a consonant should be declined (except for surnames in -th type Black, Gray). Correctly: Butnik, Butnik; Cressa, Cressu etc. But women's surnames Butnik and Cress do not bow.

Hello!

Is the punctuation correct: “It’s the same: I set it up, launched it, all the bots work, but Hello is silent, like a partisan”? Thank you!

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

Correctly: The same thing: set up, launched, all bots work, and Hello is silent like a partisan.

Dear linguists!
One question torments me: why is there no so-called "obscene" or "obscene" vocabulary in any academic dictionary of the Russian language?
Does anyone really think that due to the absence of so-called "swear words" in official dictionaries, they will disappear from the language?
Why, for example, in the English dictionaries published by Oxford or Cambridge universities and other respected academic institutions there are "obscene" words. There, for example, there is the word fuck, which is considered obscene in the English-speaking world. Of course, it is written that this word means its origin, and, of course, it is indicated that this is a very rude, abusive, extremely offensive word. Why don't we do the same ourselves? Then the child can also be shown such a dictionary and draw his attention to the fact that this word is abusive, extremely offensive. Therefore, it is used only in the most extreme cases.
One more aspect. Why until now in the academic editions of many literary works of Pushkin, Mayakovsky one has to see e., b ... and other "withholding" of abusive words. We must write directly and openly. Who are we hiding from? From children or what? Show me at least one student who does not know this word?
In general, I think that we need to stop being hypocritical, deceive ourselves and finally publish a dictionary of the real Russian language. With the mother as well. After all, language is a means of communication between people, in it, along with scientific, literary and "decent" words, there have always been, are and will be abusive words.

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

We assure you, Ilya Alekseevich, that linguists are aware of the existence of swear words and recognize their status as a special and integral part of the Russian language. The Russian mat was also studied by the outstanding Russian philologist Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev. So obscene language was present and is present in the sphere of attention of linguists.
But there are reasons why Russian mate cannot and should not be included in academic dictionaries. Profanity is called profanity because it remains outside the literary norm. Academic dictionaries of the Russian language set themselves the task of reflecting the commonly used, stylistically neutral Russian vocabulary, those words that are part of the normalized literary Russian language (including colloquial speech). For fixing profanity, there are specialized lexicographic publications. In the dictionaries of obscene words, all "e ..." and "b ..." are written directly and openly.

How to say correctly: according to the contract or according to the contract (also the contract itself)

The answer of the reference service of the Russian language

Correct: _according to the contract, agreement_, etc.

Dire Quasi la Stessa Cosa

Esperienze di Traduzione

© RCS Libri S.p.A. – Milano Bompiani 2003

© A. Koval, translation into Russian, comments, 2006. Heirs, 2015

© A. Bondarenko, design, layout, 2015

© AST Publishing House LLC, 2015

CORPUS ® Publishing

Introduction

What does "translate" mean? The first answer, and a hopeful one at that, might be to say the same thing in another language. True, at the same time, we, firstly, experience considerable difficulties in trying to establish what it means "to say same", and we are not sufficiently aware of this in the course of such operations as paraphrase, definition, clarification, reformulation, not to mention the supposed synonymous substitutions. Secondly, holding before us the text to be translated, we do not know what then. Finally, in some cases even the meaning of the word to tell.

We do not intend to emphasize the central position of the translation problem in many philosophical discussions and, therefore, we will not begin to search for an answer to the question of whether there is a certain Thing in Itself in the Iliad or in the Night Song of the Shepherd Wandering in Asia {♦ 1}* (that Thing in Itself which, it would seem, should shine through or flash beyond and above any language into which they are translated) - or, on the contrary, it will never be reached, despite all the efforts that another language will resort to. We cannot fly so high, and on the following pages we will repeatedly descend lower.

Suppose in an English novel a certain character says: it's raining cats and dogs. It will be bad for the translator who, thinking that he is saying the same thing, translates it literally: “it rains with dogs and cats” ( piove cani e gatti). This should be translated "it pours like a bucket" ( piove a cantinelle or piove saute Dio la manda). But what if this is a fantasy novel, and it was written by an adherent of the so-called "Fortian" sciences {♦ 2} and it tells how the rain really pours cats and dogs? Then you need to translate literally. Agree. What if this character goes to Dr. Freud to tell him that he has an inexplicable manic fear of cats and dogs, which, he thinks, become especially dangerous when it rains? Again, it will be necessary to translate literally, but a certain shade of meaning will be lost: after all, this Cat Man is also preoccupied with idiomatic expressions.

And if in an Italian novel the character who says that the rain is pouring with cats and dogs is a student at the Berlitz school {♦ 3} unable to resist the temptation to embellish his speech with tortured anglicisms? If translated literally, an uninformed Italian reader will not understand that this character uses Anglicism. And if this Italian novel then has to be translated into English, how can one convey this habit of equipping one's speech with Anglicisms? Is it really necessary to change the nationality of the hero and make him an Englishman, pouring Italianisms right and left, or a London worker, unsuccessfully demonstrating an Oxford pronunciation? This would be an impermissible license. And if the phrase it's raining cats and dogs does the character in the French novel speak English? How to translate it into English? See how hard it is to say what then, which should be conveyed through the text, and how difficult it is to convey.

This is the point of the following chapters: to try to understand how, even knowing that same never said, can be said almost same. With this approach, the problem is no longer so much the concept of the same most and not so much in the concept Togo the same as in the concept of this almost. How stretchable is it almost? It all depends on the point of view: the Earth is almost the same as Mars, since both of these planets revolve around the Sun and they are both spherical. But the Earth may be almost the same as any other planet orbiting in some other solar system; it is almost the same as the Sun itself, since we are talking about celestial bodies; it is almost the same as a fortune teller's crystal ball, like a ball or an orange. To set the limits of flexibility, extensibility of this almost, known criteria are required, which are preliminarily negotiated. To say almost the same thing is a procedure which, as we shall see below, goes under the sign negotiations.

* * *

Perhaps the first time I became theoretically concerned with the problems of translation was in 1983, explaining how I translated Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style. {♦ 4}. In the future, it seems, I did not pay much attention to this until the nineties, when a number of my speeches took place on various occasions at various conferences; besides, as will be seen in what follows, I once set out part of my experience as an author, translated into other languages. The problem of translation could not be avoided in my study "In Search of the Perfect Language" ( Eco 1993b); I have referred to careful analysis of translations in one translation by Joyce (Eco 1996) and also in my own translation of Gerard de Nerval's Sylvia. {♦ 5} (Eco 1999b)

However, in 1997–1999 at the University of Bologna, two year-long seminars were held, where doctoral work in semiotics was discussed. The seminars were devoted to the topic of intersemiotic translation, that is, to all those cases when translation is carried out not from one natural language to another, but from one semiotic system to another, different from it: when, for example, a novel is “translated” into a film, an epic poem - in comics or they paint a picture on the theme of a poem. In the course of the discussions, I found myself disagreeing with some of the doctoral students and colleagues on the relationship between "proper" translation and what is called "intersemiotic" translation. The subject of the dispute can be understood from the pages of this book; in the same way, one can clarify for oneself what stimuli and impulses I received, including (and even especially) from those with whom I disagreed. My responses at the time, as well as those of other participants, appeared in two special issues of VS 82 (1999) and VS 85–87 (2000).

In the meantime, in the fall of 1998, the University of Toronto invited me to a course of lectures in honor of Professor Emilio Gojo, during which I began to reconsider my thoughts on this issue. The results of these reports were then published in the volume "Experiments on Translation" ( Eco 2001).

Finally, in 2002, I delivered eight Weidenfeld Lectures at Oxford, all on the same subject, where I eventually developed the notion of translation as negotiation.

This book reproduces the essays written on the above issues, with many new arguments and examples, since I am no longer bound by the mandatory time of individual reports or speeches at a particular conference. Nevertheless, in spite of these significant additions and the different organization of the material, I have tried to maintain the conversational tone in which my earlier texts were sustained.

* * *

The conversational tone was and is explained by the fact that in the following pages, where various aspects of translation theory undoubtedly come into play, I always start from concrete experience. To put it another way, the experience may come to mind in connection with some of the theoretical problems that are being dealt with today in translation studies, but these theoretical problems always arise due to experience mostly personal.

Texts on translation studies often did not satisfy me precisely because in them the wealth of theoretical reasoning is not clothed in reliable armor of examples. Of course, this does not apply to all books or essays on the subject, and I think, for example, of the wealth of examples collected in George Steiner's After Babylon. (Steiner 1975). But in many other cases, I had the suspicion that the translation theorist himself had never translated and was therefore talking about something in which he had no direct experience.

Once Giuseppe Francescato made the following remark (I retell from memory): in order to study the phenomenon of bilingualism, and therefore to collect enough experience in the formation of dual linguistic competence, one needs hour after hour, day after day, to observe the behavior of a child who has to experience dual linguistic motivation.

Such experience can only be acquired by: (1) linguists, (2) having a spouse of a different nationality and/or living abroad, (3) having children, and (4) able to regularly monitor their children from the very first moments of their language behavior . It is not always possible to meet all these requirements, and that is why research on bilingualism has developed slowly.

I ask myself the following question: perhaps, in order to develop a theory of translation, it is necessary not only to consider many examples of translation, but also to make at least one of the following three experiments: compare translations made by others, translate oneself and be translated ( or, even better, be translated by collaborating with your own translator)?

Here one might notice that it is not at all necessary to be a poet in order to develop a sound theory of poetry, and one can appreciate a text written in a foreign language, even knowing this language mostly passively. However, this objection is only true to a certain extent. In fact, even someone who has never written poetry has experience of his own language and could at least once in his life try (and always can try) to write an eleven-syllable, find a rhyme, metaphorically depict this or that object or event. And those who have only a passive knowledge of a foreign language have at least experienced how difficult it is to build coherent phrases on it. It also seems to me that an art critic who does not know how to draw is able (and precisely for this reason) to note the difficulties that lie in any kind of visual representation; in the same way, a music critic with a weak voice can understand from direct experience what skill is needed in order to masterfully strike a high note.

Therefore, I believe that in order to engage in theoretical reflections on the process of translation, it is not useful to have its active or passive experience. On the other hand, when no theory of translation existed yet, i.e. from St. Jerome {♦ 6} until the 20th century, the only interesting observations on this subject were made by those who translated themselves, and it is well known what hermeneutical difficulties St. knew absolutely, and Greek - very poorly).

I will add that in my life I have had to check many translations made by other people, both in the course of a long publishing experience and as the head of a series of scientific essays; that I translated two laborious books, Exercises in Style by Raymond Queneau and Sylvia by Gérard de Nerval, devoting many years to both; and, as a writer of scientific and artistic works, I worked closely with my translators. Not only did I supervise the translations (at least in those languages ​​that I know to some extent, and that is why I will often quote from the translations of William Weaver, Burkhart Kroeber, Jean-Noel Schifano, Helena Lozano and others), but also in the course of work, I had long conversations with translators, so I found that if the translator or translator is smart, they can explain the problems that arise in their language, even to the author who does not know him, and even in these cases, the author can act as an employee, offering his decisions or pointing out what liberties they can take in their text in order to get around the obstacle (this often happened to me with Elena Kostiukovich, a translator into Russian, with Imre Barna, who translated into Hungarian, with Yond Bouquet and Patti Krone, who translated into Dutch, with Masaki Fujimura and Tadahiko Wada translating into Japanese).

That is why I decided to talk about translation, starting from specific problems that mostly concern my own writings, and limit myself to mentioning theoretical solutions only on the basis of this experience. in corpore vili * .

By making such a decision, I expose myself to two dangers: firstly, to show narcissism, and secondly, to believe that my interpretation my books prevailed over their interpretation by other readers, including in primis** are my translators. But I myself argued with this principle in such books as The Role of the Reader. {♦ 7} and "Limits of Interpretation". The first danger is inevitable - but, in fact, I behave like those carriers of socially dangerous diseases who agree to openly tell people both about their current condition and about the treatment measures they are taking in order to benefit others. As regards the second danger, I hope that the following pages will show that I have always pointed out to my translators the critical places in my texts that could give rise to ambiguities, advising them to pay attention to it and not trying to influence their interpretation. On other occasions I answered their direct requests when they asked me which of the various decisions I would make if I had to write in their language; and in these cases, my decision had the force of law, because in the end, my name is on the cover of the book.

On the other hand, in my experience as an author being translated into other languages, I constantly felt the conflict between the need for the translation to be “true” to what I wrote, and the exciting discovery of how my text could (and sometimes had) to be transformed by putting on the words of another language. And, although sometimes I realized that translation was impossible (although such cases were always resolved in one way or another), even more often I noticed the possibilities: in other words, I noticed how, when in contact with another language, the text showed potentials of interpretation that were not known myself, and how sometimes the translation could improve the original (I say “improve” precisely in relation to that intention which the text itself suddenly manifested, regardless of the original intention that I had as an empirical author).

* * *

This book, coming from personal experience and born out of two series of lectures, I do not pass off as a book on translation theory(and it lacks a corresponding systematicity) for the simple reason that it leaves the innumerable problems of translation studies open. I am not talking about relations with the Greek and Latin classics, simply because I have never translated Homer and I have not had the opportunity to pass judgment on this or that Homeric translation for a series of classical authors. I speak of so-called intersemiotic translation only occasionally, since I have never made a film based on a novel or staged a ballet based on a poem. I do not deal with post-colonial tactics and strategies for adapting this or that oriental text to the perception of other cultures, since I could neither follow the translations of my texts into Arabic, Persian, Korean or Chinese, nor discuss these translations. I have never had to translate texts written by a woman (and not because, out of habit, I translate only men: in my whole life I have translated only two of them), and I do not know what problems I would have to face. In relations with some of my translators (into Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Finnish, Dutch, Croatian, Greek), I met such a willingness on their part to apply to my text that I did not encounter any will for a “feminist” translation.

I spent several paragraphs on the word "loyalty" because the author, who monitors his translators, always proceeds from the implied requirement fidelity. I understand that this word may seem outdated in view of the statements of individual critics who claim that in translation only the result that is realized in the text and the language of arrival counts - especially at a certain historical moment when an attempt is made to update a text created in other eras. But the concept of fidelity is connected with the belief that translation is a form of interpretation and, even based on the perception and culture of the reader, he should always strive to reproduce the intention - I will not say "author", but text intent: what the text says or hints at, based on the language in which it is expressed and the cultural context in which it appeared.

Suppose in some American text one character says to another: you are just pulling my leg. The interpreter should not translate this literally: “you are only pulling my leg” or “yes, you are pulling my leg”; the right thing to do is "you're trying to wrap me around your finger" (mi stay prendendo in giro) or, even better, "you lead me by the nose" (mi stai prendendo per il naso). A literal translation will turn out to be a turn, in Italian so unusual that we will be forced to assume that the character (and the author along with him) invent some kind of bold rhetorical figure - and this is not so, since the character uses what is in his language is a fixed expression. On the contrary, if we replace "leg" with "nose", the Italian reader will find himself in the same situation in which the author of the text would like to place the English reader. So, here is an example of how apparent infidelity (the text is not translated literally) turns out to be an act of fidelity in the end. St. Jerome, the patron saint of translators, spoke about this in almost the same words: when translating, you need to non verbum e verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu* - although we will see that this statement can also lead to many ambiguities.

So, to translate means to understand the internal system of a particular language and the structure of a given text in this language and to build such a textual system that in a certain sense can have a similar effect on the reader - both in terms of semantic and syntactic, and in terms of stylistic, metrical, sound-symbolic, as well as the emotional impact that the source text aspired to 1 .

1. Union to be written together (in one word): The editor met with the author, to agree on the changes made to the manuscript. It should be distinguished from the combination what would (pronoun and particle), in which the particle could be rearranged to another place in the sentence: What think of something else?; What else would you think of?; What would no matter what happens, I will not leave him in trouble; I have no idea, what would he did in my place.

The following case is also possible: There is no such force that held him in place- here a permutation of the particle would be acceptable and, consequently, a separate spelling of the allied word and the particle: There is no such force that would keep it in place.

Remember: combination no matter what written in six words.

2. Unions are also written together (in one word), and both unions are synonymous with the union and; cf.: you too rested in the Caucasus? - You same rested in the Caucasus?- AND you rested in the Caucasus?

Conjunctions too and also should be distinguished from combinations the same (pronoun with a particle) and the same (adverb with a particle). When combined, the same pronoun often stands most: repeated daily same. In addition, the combination of the same is often followed by the allied word that: Today is the same as yesterday.

The combination is also often followed by an adverb like: We decided to spend the summer the same as last year (the particle can be omitted: We decided to spend the summer same as last year).

Often, only in a broad context can one distinguish between the presence of an alliance or combination in a sentence (also - the same, also - the same). Wed:

The others also shouted loudly (‘and the rest shouted loudly’).

The rest shouted the same loudly (‘they shouted the same thing loudly’).

Teenagers also (‘and teenagers took part in the fight against the fascist invaders’ - with an intonational pause after the word also).

Teenagers are the same bravely fought against the fascist invaders(‘they fought with the same courage’ - with an intonational pause after the word bravely).

Note. The particle is also written in one word: Also my adviser!

3. Unions, and moreover, have an attached meaning (‘in addition to this’) and are written together (in one word): The experiment went well and first; The speech is meaningful and besides interesting in form.

Conjunctions, moreover, and moreover, should be distinguished from combinations with what and with that (pronoun with a preposition). The combination of what is used in interrogative sentences: here he is with his claims? The combination with that usually determines the following noun: At that publishing house There is a small print shop.

4. The union is written together (in one word): The climb up here is steep. but the road is beautiful.

The union, on the other hand, should be distinguished from the combination for that (pronoun with a preposition): The workers received an award for what that completed the construction ahead of schedule.

5. Union so (meaning ‘therefore’) is written together (in one word): So, the lesson is over. It should be distinguished from the combination and so (conjunction and adverb): And so ends every time.

6. Explanatory conjunctions, that is, that is, are written separately (in two words): Drinking as usual that is, a lot (P.); Third day, that is this week, I tell the elder...(Blind).

7. Complex alliances because, since, so, in order to, then how and others are written separately (in two or three words): We returned from the forest very soon, because it started to rain; As the bell rang, everyone had to turn in their notebooks to the teacher; I spent all the holidays so skiing was not possible; In order to learn to swim, you must not be afraid of water; We get up early and go fishing whereas our friends slept all morning.

What is the correct spelling: "the same thing" or "the same thing" ??? and got the best answer

Answer from Lena Garbuzova[guru]



A lot depends on the context

Answer from Warlock_9000[active]
Same

Answer from 00000 00000 [guru]
the same... sort of..)

Answer from Kenny McCormick[active]
Depends on the context, but I think it's the same in your case.

Answer from Ann Fedko[active]
same

Answer from Ѐustam Soviet[newbie]
Unions are also written together, are synonymous and easily replace each other. In addition, they are synonymous with the union and, which can be used as a means of distinguishing between these unions and combinations of the particle with the adverb so or with the pronoun that: the same and the same: who has a good word to say about him? (Peak) - the replacement of unions does not change the meaning of the sentence. The combinations the same and the same cannot be replaced by the union and, but the particle can be omitted in them, while the meaning of the sentence will not change. In addition, often the combination of the same is followed by the pronoun (union word) that, and the combination of 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 is the same as yesterday; cf. : the state is the same as yesterday; Her strong, magnificent, well-trained body resisted the transition to null space in much the same way as the drivers of ZPL (Ephr.); cf. : just like the drivers; everything is the same as for drivers; In a hole without depths - how do you live, dear? Is it harder, just like me with the other? (Color) ; cf. : is it like me with another?
Note 1. In some cases, the general meaning of the sentence or the features of its structure help to distinguish between such unions and combinations. Wed : The audience also listened carefully. - In the audience, the same was listened to attentively - in the first case, the meaning was "they listened attentively in the audience", and in the second - "they listened to the same thing"; Only one month still brilliantly floated in the vast deserts of the luxurious Ukrainian sky, and the earth was just as beautiful in a marvelous silver sheen (G.) - in the first part only separate writing is possible, as in the second, since we are talking about the beauty of impressions , not about listing actions.

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