# Например and на смех (spelling of adverbs as a single word or separaetly)



## Xavier61

Maroseika said:


> В данном случае действует такое правило: "Пишутся слитно наречия, имеющие в своем составе ... именные формы, которые в современном литературном языке не употребляются" (par. 56-5). Слово "перво" отдельно не употребляется.
> А дефис в этом наречии ставится по такому правилу: "Пишутся через дефис наречия, образованные повторением того же самого слова или той же основы..." (par. 57-4).


Thank you, I am reading it. Very confusing, from a logical viewpoint.
He writes:
"Пишутся раздельно употребленные в роли наречия сочетания имен существительных с различными предлогами, если существительное в определенном значении сохранило хотя бы некоторые падежные формы, например: ..."
Well, what about "например"? Why he writes it слитно? Sounds contradictory, at first sight. What am I missing?
And again: 
"Пишутся раздельно употребленные в наречном значении сочетания имен существительных с предлогами:
...
на, например: на бегу, на весу , на виду, на лету, на скаку, на ходу; на вес, на вид, на вкус, на глаз, на глазок, на грех, на диво, на зависть, на ощупь, на редкость, на славу, на смех; ..."
например

It looks like long lists of words that everybody must learn by heart. Do you have another authoritative source?
Dietmar Elyashevich Rosental ... Was he a native Russian speaker? Any other authority on such a complex matter? The Academy of Sciences maybe?


----------



## Q-cumber

Например is a parenthetic word, meaning "для примера, к примеру, в частности" (for example). It's a single word as is, it wouldn't make much sense with "на" written separately.


Very roughly: if an adverb ends with "о" it is most likely written jointly. It's a 'natural adverb', so to speak.  If a noun with a preposition is used as an adverb (answering an adverbial question "how", etc. ) - write it separately.

Я оценил вес (как?) на глаз. (I estimated the weight (how?) approximately, by sight).
Переписал (как?) набело (wrote out fair)


----------



## Rosett

Xavier61 said:


> Thank you, I am reading it. Very confusing, from a logical viewpoint.
> He writes:
> "Пишутся раздельно употребленные в роли наречия сочетания имен существительных с различными предлогами, если существительное в определенном значении сохранило хотя бы некоторые падежные формы, например: ..."
> 
> "Пишутся раздельно употребленные в наречном значении сочетания имен существительных с предлогами:
> ...
> на, например: на бегу, на весу , на виду, на лету, на скаку, на ходу; на вес, на вид, на вкус, на глаз, на глазок, на грех, на диво, на зависть, на ощупь, на редкость, на славу, на смех; ..."


*Наощупь* is often written in one word, where applicable contextually, especially by the good authors:
"Слепые живут наощупь,
    трогая мир руками,
    не зная света и тени
    и ощущая камни:"

And *насмех* is written in one word when used as adverb:
"AMP - Nov 19, 2011 - Это курам насмех - сказала баба Дуня, подкладывая коноплю в пшено..."
This pun underlines the subtle difference between two possible spellings.


----------



## Q-cumber

"На смех" should be written separately, no matter what good authors say. Let's not provide misleading information to the learners.


----------



## Rosett

Q-cumber said:


> "На смех" should be written separately, no matter what good authors say. Let's not provide misleading information to the learners.


The good authors may not fully agree with you:

"...и уж вовсе курам *насмех* ― имел «монархические симпатии»." [А. И. Солженицын. Архипелаг ГУЛаг (1958-1973)]
"...Они кланялись ему *насмех* в ноги и говорили: ― Радуйся, царь иудейский!" [Л. Н. Толстой. Учение Христа, изложенное для детей (1908)]
"Как ни падки французы на титулы, даже баронские, они тем не менее едва ли находили для себя приятным иметь русское союзное посольство, составленное как *насмех* исключительно из немецких фамилий: барон Унгерн-Штернберг, граф Ребиндер, граф Людерс-Веймарн."  [А. А. Игнатьев. Пятьдесят лет в строю. Кн. 3 (1947-1953)]

Good authors form our standard language, no matter what later compilateurs read.


----------



## Maroseika

Xavier61 said:


> Thank you, I am reading it. Very confusing, from a logical viewpoint.
> He writes:
> "Пишутся раздельно употребленные в роли наречия сочетания имен существительных с различными предлогами, если существительное в определенном значении сохранило хотя бы некоторые падежные формы, например: ..."
> Well, what about "например"? Why he writes it слитно? Sounds contradictory, at first sight. What am I missing?


Yes, you are missing the rule in its integrity. Adverb например refers to clause 6 of par. 56:
"Пишутся слитно наречия, если между предлогом-приставкой и существительным, из которых образовалось наречие, не может быть без изменения смысла вставлено определение (прилагательное, числительное, местоимение) или если к существительному не может быть поставлен падежный вопрос...".



> Dietmar Elyashevich Rosental ... Was he a native Russian speaker? Any other authority on such a complex matter? The Academy of Sciences maybe?


Yes, he was a native Russian speaker and he is one of the most authoritative Russian grammarians. You may also check in the more contemporary reference of Lopatin, but it's less detailed. In particular, adverbs of this type are not considered there.


----------



## Maroseika

Rosett said:


> *Наощупь* is often written in one word, where applicable contextually, especially by the good authors:
> And *насмех* is written in one word when used as adverb:


Adverbs на смех and наощупь are written only separately in accordance with the contemporary rules. Authors, no matter good or not, may use their own grammar, but Russian standard grammar unambiguously prescribes separate spelling. Just for reference: these adverbs were written as a single word in the past.
So let's not confuse the learners of Russian.


----------



## Xavier61

Maroseika said:


> Yes, you are missing the rule in its integrity. Adverb например refers to clause 6 of par. 56:
> "Пишутся слитно наречия, если между предлогом-приставкой и существительным, из которых образовалось наречие, не может быть без изменения смысла вставлено определение (прилагательное, числительное, местоимение) или если к существительному не может быть поставлен падежный вопрос...".



A set of rules that says: "if X then Y" and "if X then not Y" is not very useful. We can arrive at any conclusion we want, even contradictorily.    



Maroseika said:


> Yes, he was a native Russian speaker and he is one of the most authoritative Russian grammarians. You may also check in the more contemporary reference of Lopatin, but it's less detailed. In particular, adverbs of this type are not considered there.


The source says otherwise:
Русский язык не был для Д. Э. Розенталя родным: с отцом он говорил по-немецки, с матерью и братом — по-польски.
В Россию Розенталь впервые попадает в возрасте 16 лет, о чем сам говорит в интервью газете Комсомольская правда.
But certainly he had a great mind and learnt fast
Долгое время руководил факультетской группой дикторов телевидения и радио СССР. That's amazing!!!
Thank you for the link to Lopatin.


----------



## Xavier61

Rosett said:


> Good authors form our standard language, no matter what later compilateurs read.


Certainly it is so in most languages, grammarians follow good authors, not the other way around.


----------



## Xavier61

Q-cumber said:


> Например is a parenthetic word, meaning "для примера, к примеру, в частности" (for example). It's a single word as is, it wouldn't make much sense with "на" written separately.
> 
> 
> Very roughly: if an adverb ends with "о" it is most likely written jointly. It's a 'natural adverb', so to speak.  If a noun with a preposition is used as an adverb (answering an adverbial question "how", etc. ) - write it separately.
> 
> Я оценил вес (как?) на глаз. (I estimated the weight (how?) approximately, by sight).
> Переписал (как?) набело (wrote out fair)


Yes, thank you. Things are getting clearer for me, we write together prepositions + adverbs and adjectives, with few exceptions. But it is very confusing when we have preposition+noun. Even good authors seem to have their own different opinions as to how to write them. The absence of written stress makes it harder. Is it нá смех  или на смéх? нáсмех?


----------



## Q-cumber

Xavier61 said:


> Yes, thank you. Things are getting clearer for me, we write together prepositions + adverbs and adjectives, with few exceptions. But it is very confusing when we have preposition+noun. Even good authors seem to have their own different opinions as to how to write them. The absence of written stress makes it harder. Is it нá смех  или на смéх? нáсмех?


н*а *смех (насмех  )
"На смех" is mostly used in two idiomatic expressions:
"к*у*рам н*а* смех" (said about some senseless, stupid, absurd statement or action) it's enough to make a cat (a chicken) laugh.
"подн*я*ть н*а *смех"  (высмеять) to make fun of , to ridicule


----------



## Maroseika

Xavier61 said:


> A set of rules that says: "if X then Y" and "if X then not Y" is not very useful. We can arrive at any conclusion we want, even contradictorily.


To avoid confusion when using this reference, each paragraph should be written in due order - from the first to the last. Such a way one can choose the most apprpriate clause, like in the case with adverb "например": if it is evidently explained in clause 6 (preposition + noun with no name to insert in between), no need to keep looking for it in the next clauses and paragraphs.
This comprehenisve reference book helps millions and millions Russian natives and advanced learners of Russian, just learn how to cook it.


----------



## Xavier61

Q-cumber said:


> н*а *смех (насмех  )
> "На смех" is mostly used in two idiomatic expressions:
> "к*у*рам н*а* смех" (said about some senseless, stupid, absurd statement or action) it's enough to make a cat (a chicken) laugh.
> "подн*я*ть н*а *смех"  (высмеять) to make fun of , to ridicule


Thank you for the info about stress, but you should read Rosental, as Maroseika explained:
"Пишутся слитно наречия, если между предлогом-приставкой и существительным, из которых образовалось наречие, не может быть без изменения смысла вставлено определение (прилагательное, числительное, местоимение) или если к существительному не может быть поставлен падежный вопрос..."
so it should be "нáсмех", if we follow the rules. It looks exactly the same case as "например". If I understood Rosental and Maroseika's explanation. And, as Rosett pointed out, some good authors also understand Rosental's rules in that sense, so they write "насмех".


----------



## Xavier61

Maroseika said:


> To avoid confusion when using this reference, each paragraph should be written in due order - from the first to the last. Such a way one can choose the most apprpriate clause, like in the case with adverb "например": if it is evidently explained in clause 6 (preposition + noun with no name to insert in between), no need to keep looking for it in the next clauses and paragraphs.


Ясно понятно. So, if, for instance, I want to know how to write "насмех", then I read Rosental's rules and when I arrive at clause 6 (preposition + noun with no name to insert in between), no need to keep looking for it in the next clauses and paragraphs. I conclude that we must write "насмех". Right?


Maroseika said:


> This comprehenisve reference book helps millions and millions Russian natives and advanced learners of Russian, just learn how to cook it.


I am trying to learn. But Rosental, well, not very helpful. I like more Lopatin, from what I have read till now. Thanks again for the link.


----------



## Maroseika

Xavier61 said:


> "Пишутся слитно наречия, если между предлогом-приставкой и существительным, из которых образовалось наречие, не может быть без изменения смысла вставлено определение (прилагательное, числительное, местоимение) или если к существительному не может быть поставлен падежный вопрос..."
> so it should be "нáсмех", if we follow the rules. It looks exactly the same case as "например".


Adverbs of this type are considered in the different clause - par. 58-3:
"Пишутся раздельно употребленные в наречном значении сочетания имен существительных с предлогами: ...на редкость, на славу, на смех".
According to this reference, adverbs like например are pure adverbs (consisting of prepositin-prefix and noun), while adverbs like на смех is combination of the preposition and the noun used in the adverbial sense. Sometimes the margin may seem rather indefinite. For such a case one can use references and dictionaries, which are inanimous (на смех). As for the "good authors", they should be used with caution, because they may use obsolete orthography or even their own, so called "author orthography".



> Ясно понятно. So, if, for instance, I want to know how to write "насмех", then I read Rosental's rules and when I arrive at clause 6 (preposition + noun with no name to insert in between), no need to keep looking for it in the next clauses and paragraphs. I conclude that we must write "насмех". Right?


Not exactly. First of all you read the whole chapter of the reference, in our case - "Правописание наречий". Only having read it completely you can get to know what exactly clause refers to your case directly.


----------



## Q-cumber

Xavier61 said:


> Thank you for the info about stress, but you should read Rosental, as Maroseika explained:
> "Пишутся слитно наречия, если между предлогом-приставкой и существительным, из которых образовалось наречие, не может быть без изменения смысла вставлено определение (прилагательное, числительное, местоимение) или если к существительному не может быть поставлен падежный вопрос..."
> so it should be "нáсмех", if we follow the rules. It looks exactly the same case as "например". If I understood Rosental and Maroseika's explanation. And, as Rosett pointed out, some good authors also understand Rosental's rules in that sense, so they write "насмех".


Referring to 'good authors' in these matters isn't a good idea whatsoever. For example, all published Solzhenitsyn's books usually contain an editor's remark "Авторская орфография и пунктуация сохранены".  He was insisting on spelling "девчёнка"  instead of "девчонка" , etc.. But if you try to use his orthography on a school language exam, you'll never pass it.  By the way, I don't consider Solzhenitsyn a good writer, but this is only my personal opinion.
Tolstoy passed away 100+ years ago and it's obvious that the language rules changed a lot since then.


----------



## Xavier61

Q-cumber said:


> Referring to 'good authors' in these matters isn't a good idea whatsoever. For example, all published Solzhenitsyn's books usually contain an editor's remark "Авторская орфография и пунктуация сохранены".  He was insisting on spelling "девчёнка"  instead of "девчонка" , etc.. But if you try to use his orthography on a school language exam, you'll never pass it.  By the way, I don't consider Solzhenitsyn a good writer, but this is only my personal opinion.


I didn't know, I have only read Solzhenitsyn in Spanish and only one book (Agosto 1914). I didn't find it very interesting.


Q-cumber said:


> Tolstoy passed away 100+ years ago and it's obvious that the language rules changed a lot since then.


Rosental's Справочник was compiled when? More than 50 years ago?

Today I was listening to and old song and, looking for the words, I found:
Так зачем мне стараться?
Так зачем мне стремиться?
Чтоб во всем разобраться -
Мне необходимо напиться!

Владимир Высоцкий - Сколько я ни старался, сколько я ни стремился
Владимир Высоцкий - Сколько я ни старался, сколько я ни стремился - Текст Песни

I would have written "вовсем", слитно как "совсем, вовсе, вовсю, ...." It looks very adverbial, something like "to fully understand". Is the compilator right when he writes it раздельно? Rosental is not very clear on the matter, or I cannot find it.
Спасибо заранее


----------



## Xavier61

Maroseika said:


> Adverbs of this type are considered in the different clause - par. 58-3:
> "Пишутся раздельно употребленные в наречном значении сочетания имен существительных с предлогами: ...на редкость, на славу, на смех".
> According to this reference, adverbs like например are pure adverbs (consisting of prepositin-prefix and noun), while adverbs like на смех is combination of the preposition and the noun used in the adverbial sense. Sometimes the margin may seem rather indefinite. For such a case one can use references and dictionaries, which are inanimous (на смех). As for the "good authors", they should be used with caution, because they may use obsolete orthography or even their own, so called "author orthography".
> 
> 
> Not exactly. First of all you read the whole chapter of the reference, in our case - "Правописание наречий". Only having read it completely you can get to know what exactly clause refers to your case directly.


Thank you, it is still confusing, I am afraid I am not a good student.

разбирать:
...
2. беря по одному, изымать множество каких-либо объектов ...
https://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/разбирать

But, following Rosental, it should be по-одному?

"57. Дефисное написание наречий
Пишутся через дефис наречия с приставкой по-, образованные от полных прилагательных    и местоимений и оканчивающиеся на -ому, -ему, -ки, -ьи, например: работать по-новому, пусть будет по-вашему, советовать по-дружески, говорить по-французски, хитрить по-лисьи, по-видимому, по-пустому, по-прежнему. Также:сделаем по-серёжиному (от притяжательного прилагательного серёжин, образованного от собственного имени Серёжа)."

When trying to understand it, I find "поодиночке"???  Not "по одиночке" as "по старинке"?
§ 58. Раздельное написание наречных сочетаний
...
3. Пишутся раздельно употребленные в наречном значении сочетания имен существительных с предлогами:
...
по, например: по старинке"


----------



## Q-cumber

Xavier61 said:


> Rosental's Справочник was compiled when? More than 50 years ago?


 The version that you refer above was last published in 1997. When talking about changes in the Russian language rules, I mostly meant the post-revolution language reform of 1917-1918.


> Today I was listening to and old song and, looking for the words, I found:
> Так зачем мне стараться?
> Так зачем мне стремиться?
> Чтоб во всем разобраться -
> Мне необходимо напиться!
> 
> Владимир Высоцкий - Сколько я ни старался, сколько я ни стремился
> Владимир Высоцкий - Сколько я ни старался, сколько я ни стремился - Текст Песни
> 
> I would have written "вовсем", слитно как "совсем, вовсе, вовсю, ...." It looks very adverbial, something like "to fully understand". Is the compilator right when he writes it раздельно? Rosental is not very clear on the matter, or I cannot find it.
> Спасибо заранее


No, it's not adverbial. Разобраться (в чём?) в ситуации <to understand/ to make sense of the situation, to settle up the matter>, в проблеме, во всём.


----------



## Maroseika

Xavier61 said:


> 2. беря по одному, изымать множество каких-либо объектов ...


По одному and по-одному are different things. If explanation of Rozental is not clear enough and you want to ask about this kind of difference, please open a new thread, because this one is about *spelling adverbs as a single word.*


----------



## Rosett

Q-cumber said:


> "На смех" should be written separately, no matter what good authors say. Let's not provide misleading information to the learners.


It would be important to understand, based on your opinion, how could the learners tell between "поспешил на смех" от "поспешил на смех" in writing?


----------



## Maroseika

Rosett said:


> It would be important to understand, based on your opinion, how could the learners tell between "поспешил на смех" от "поспешил на смех" in writing?


Not sure what exactly difference you mean here, but the general answer is - from the context.
And yes, sometimes following the rule may cause ambiguity. But this is not a reason to breach the rules for the sake of sense (nor the opposite). This is just a reason to change the phrasing to avoid ambiguity.


----------



## Rosett

Maroseika said:


> Not sure what exactly difference you mean here, but the general answer is - from the context.
> And yes, sometimes following the rule may cause ambiguity. But this is not a reason to breach the rules for the sake of sense (nor the opposite). This is just a reason to change the phrasing to avoid ambiguity.


Of course, you can't be sure in the given case, even with the context, although the given example is quite simple to understand.
Here the difference is between "поспешил на смех" (чей-то) and "поспешил на смех" (людей насмешил).


----------



## Maroseika

Rosett said:


> Here the difference is between "поспешил на смех" (чей-то) and "поспешил на смех" (людей насмешил).


I think the chance for ambiguity here is even less than in case of со всем согласиться and совсем согласиться or указать на пример and указать, например. In the Rozental's reference this distinction is explained very clearly. So no reason to breach the rules or invent the own.


----------



## Vovan

Xavier61 said:


> _на бегу, на весу , на виду, на лету, на скаку, на ходу; на вес, на вид, на вкус, на глаз, на глазок, на грех, на диво, на зависть, на ощупь, на редкость, на славу, на смех; ..._
> 
> It looks like long lists of words that everybody must learn by heart.


Quite the opposite: you only learn adverbs' (наоборот, etc.) and sentence adverbs' (например, во-первых, etc.) spellings by heart.

The list you quote doesn't contain adverbs per se. You don't have to pay attention to such lists: they are useless.


----------



## Xavier61

Rosett said:


> Of course, you can't be sure in the given case, even with the context, although the given example is quite simple to understand.
> Here the difference is between "поспешил на смех" (чей-то) and "поспешил на смех" (людей насмешил).


ч.т.д.
Вопрос: "поспешил на смéх" (чей-то) "поспешил нá смех" (людей насмешил) что ли? Извините, я неродной. В Forvo этих выражении нету.


----------

