How to properly "dress" or "wear"? Examples of spelling words in a sentence

Many people do not see the difference in what kind of verb to use in a particular context - "dress" or "wear". Many even believe that it does not need any rules, explanations and clarifications at all. In their opinion, "wearing a hat" or "putting on a hat" sounds differently, but the result will still be the same.

Dictionary Ushakov on the verbs "dress" and "wear"

In the "Explanatory Dictionary" Ushakov given such an explanation of the verb "dress":

1. Dress up - clothe someone or something in some kind of clothes. For example: "Dress the artists in fancy dresses."
2. To dress - means, to cover or wrap up something for heat. For example, to equip a horse with a blanket, to dress a sick person with a blanket.
3. In the figurative sense of "dress" - this means enveloping, covering, enveloping. Examples are figurative expressions-metaphors: "Winter wore the earth with all the snows" or "The trees dressed the glade with lace shadows".
4. To dress in the broadest sense of the word means to provide someone with clothes, help in buying all kinds of clothes. For example: "So she tried to dress her family, that she worked tirelessly."

About the verb "to wear" Ushakov writes:

1. To put on - to pull, cover, pull clothes, part of clothes or bedspread, blanket, cloth in order to hide from the cold, rain or wind, or hide, hide nakedness. Examples: "Once it's raining - you do not forget to put on a hood!", "The smart girl put on a net - and became not naked or dressed!"
2. To put on - to plant something on something. "Putting a duck on a duck on a spit - and on its fire, let it get better!"

The portable meaning of the verb "put on"

Some linguists argue that the word "put on" is not as polysemantic as its paronym "to dress". A pier, it defines only concrete actions, and in a figurative sense to use it it is impossible.

However, this is not entirely true. The verb "to put on" can serve as a part of the expression-metaphor, when an animation of inanimate nature takes place or the transfer of human actions to it.

Examples of such proposals are: "Birches put on their earrings as if they were virgins for extradition" or "I put on a sheepskin coat from the snow like an old grandfather, standing up to her, squeaking."

Let's turn to Rosenthal

At school, teachers explain the use of "dress" and "wear", based on the following explanations of Rosenthal: they dress someone (or something, for example, a doll, corpse, effigy) in something or something, and put on something, Then on someone.

That is, you can dress or clothe your son in a jacket, a bride in a wedding dress, a gloved hand. But you can put something on someone or something: a jacket for his son, a wedding dress for the bride, a glove on his arm. Even the phrase-clue is given: "Grandfather is dressed, she is wearing a sheepskin coat".

The antonyms help us!

Some people, faced with a dilemma, like saying "put on" or "put on a coat", came up with a simple way to choose the right option. It turns out that one can use the antonyms of these words.

The word with the opposite meaning of the verb "dress" will be the action "undress", and the antonym of the verb "to wear" is considered to "take off". Since the phrase "undressing a coat" is meaningless, it is, of course, impossible to wear a coat.

In the same way, you can make the right choice between two expressions: "put on glasses" or "put on glasses." Can I undress my glasses? Of course not! Therefore, it is right to consider the second option - to wear glasses.

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

Semantic Confusion

In essence, the use of the verbs "to dress" or "wear" often does not contribute to an understanding of the confusion. Although this possibility exists, if, for example, the conversation is about the doll-parsley, which, like a glove, is put on hand.

The proposal to wear a doll-parsley will mean that the pupa should be dressed in new clothes: change the hat, throw a cloak or tie a scarf. But the request to wear a doll already means that you need to pull the parsley on your arm and get ready for the performance. So in this situation, the use of the verbs "to dress" or "wear" fundamentally changes the meaning of what has been said.

This can also occur when it comes to the words "scarecrow" or "scarecrow", because they can also be put on something, and put on a pole or pole.

Humor in the Russian language lessons

As you know, teens have always been nihilistic in all ages. The majority with enthusiasm perceive in hostility all the generally accepted rules. And, of course, they are trying to prove that the words "dress" and "put on" are almost identical, so there is no sense in understanding which one should be used in this or that case.

The teacher has to be an artist, a storyteller at lessons, to be able to masterfully conduct a discussion, select irrefutable evidence, logically prove the necessity of knowledge of the rules of the Russian language. And he needs to be ... humorist.

After all, humor is probably the most powerful weapon against ignorance. And even if the situation told by the teacher, it will not be very plausible, but its imagery will leave in the minds of the "notch" forever. Thanks to the funny "picture" created by the imagination of a wise teacher, students will understand that there is a difference between the verbs "to dress" and "wear" the difference, and huge.

The clothed chicken

The confusion in the use of these two verbs is due to the fact that both verbs are single-root. However, the verb "to wear" has more meanings. Along with the process of putting on garments, it can still carry the meaning of "planting", for example, on a spit or a peak. The story that will make the children laugh and remain in their memory is just based on this polysemy of the verb "to wear".

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

When the fire in the bonfire gaily blazed, the person responsible for preparing the food said to Hernando: "Dress the chicken - that's the skewer!" The guy to whom the request was made, nodded his head and walked away from the fire to the table where the raw food lay.

He was absent for a long time. But when he returned with a chicken in his hands, a friendly laughter just blew up the neighborhood! The chicken was wearing a leather cap, its waist was decorated with a skirt with straps - a sort of sarafan made from a chiffon scarf of one of the coquettish female students, and the stumps of the legs were stuffed into someone's sneakers.

The one who gave Hernando the order to "dress the chicken" was outraged most of all, because it was his cap and his sneakers that were spoiled by a stupid Mexican. But he calmly replied that he had fulfilled the request perfectly: to put on a chicken means to dress her in some outfit. He already knows the Russian language!

Of course, at first the order seemed a little strange to him. But he reasoned as follows: being familiar with some Russian customs, the young man did not tire of being surprised at them. For example, in carols people dress up in skins of different animals, decorating a Christmas tree for the New Year. Maybe there is still some custom when you need to dress up a chicken before frying it?

The ironic illustration of the rules helps to better memorize

By the way, after such a ridiculous story the teacher can present the children with pictures with the signatures: one picture showing the "smart" chicken, and under it the phrase: "Dress the chicken in clothes", and the second figure with the carcass on the skewer, under which it is written: " Put the chicken on the skewer. "

After such a humorous and visual impact, the guys will never be confused, what to say: "dress" 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 "dress" is used only in relation to animate objects or inanimate, but having the signs of a person (corpse, doll, effigy, mannequin). As mentioned above, sometimes this verb appears in metaphors with the animated objects of inanimate nature - they are attributed to the abilities of living beings.

Consequently, the word "dressed" can also serve as a definition of only a living being or animated by human imagination. A dressed man, a dressed lady, houses, dressed in snow caps, are examples of the use of the word "dressed".

Although in fairy tales heroes (revived inanimate objects in ordinary life) can be clothed: this is the table, and the bed, and other things.

"A table dressed in a festive tablecloth proudly looked at its neighbors" or "A photograph of her father, dressed in a smart frame, hitherto huddled in a closet, was extremely happy with these changes in her fate."

"Dressed glove", "wearing a glove" - how right?

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

An example with a glove can be used in the classroom, explaining the semantic difference between the definitions of "dressed" and "put on." For better memorization, students can be given pictures with captions. And one of them will be reliable - with the signature "wearing a glove". But the picture signed by the phrase "dressed glove" will be humorous - there on the glove, or rather, on one of her fingers, a hat is put on and a scarf is tied.

The phrase "dressed glove" can exist only in a fairy tale or a fantastic story, where the accessory comes alive, can dress up, talk, think. For example, some ladies put on rings on top of gloves. And such a fantastic plot allows the use of this phrase: for one glove the hostess wore a ring on top, and on the other - no. And the "dressed glove", with a gold belt adorned with a diamond, taunts her sister, who "is forced to go out in the light stripped." End this story may be that the hostess loses one glove - one that was "undressed". "Rich glove" is happy - now she will no longer tolerate this annoying beggar beside her! However, she is in for a misfortune: the mistress, having discovered the loss and burned, throws a stupid dumpster into the trash.