Предмет: Русский язык, автор: ondarsuru599

1)почему в лингвистике неоднозначно решается вопрос о словах категории состояния в системе частей речи?
2) в чем заключается синтаксическая особенность слов категории состояния? приведите примеры

Ответы

Автор ответа: dianashamirova

Ответ:

1)не знаю

Объяснение:

2)Категория состояния - неизменная, самостоятельная часть речи, обозначающая состояние человека, природы или предмета, отвечает на вопрос "как?", "каково?". В безлично предложении является сказуемым. На первый взгляд похода на прилагательное краткой формы среднего рода и на наречие с суффиксом "о".

Примеры категорий состояния: хмуро, ненастно, тоскливо, обидно, сумрачно.

Примеры предложений:

1. Мне было обидно услышать про себя такие слова.

2. Вечерами Гале становится тоскливо одной.

Предыдущий вопрос

Следующий вопрос

Похожие вопросы

Предмет: Математика, автор: Elenakotenoc

В саду растут яблони, груши, сливы, вишни. Яблони занимают 5/12 всей площади сада, груши 2/12, вишни 4/12, а остальную площадь, равную 12 метров в квадрате, занимают сливы. Чему равна площадь сада?

1 год назад

Предмет: Английский язык, автор: angel0gen93

Помогите перевести пожалуйста
Charles-Louisde Secondat M ontesquieu, 1689— 1755
Montesquieu is a French political philosopher whose major work appeared under the title The Spirit of Laws. It consisted of two volumes, comprising 31 books in 1,086 pages. It is one of the greatest works in the history of political theory and in the history of jurisprudence. Its author had acquainted himselfwith all previous schools of thought but identified himself with none.
Ofthe multiplicity ofsubjects treated by Montesquieu, none remained unadorned. His treatment of the three was particularly memorable.
The first of these is his classification of governments. Abandoning the classical divisions of his predecessors into monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, Montesquieu produced his own analysis and assigned to each form of government an animating principle: the republic, based on virtue; the monarchy, based on honour; and despotism, based on fear. His definitions show that this classification rests not on the location of political power but on the government’s manner of conducting policy; it involves a historical and not a narrow descriptive approach.
The second ofhis most noted arguments is the theory ofthe separation of powers. Dividing political authority into the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, he asserted that, in the state that most effectively promotes liberty, these three powers must be confided to different individuals or bodies, acting independently. It at once became perhaps the most important piece of political writing of the 18th century. Though its accuracy has in more recent times been disputed, in its own century it was admired and held authoritative; it inspired the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Constitution of the United States.
The third of Montesquieu’s most celebrated doctrincs is that of the political influence of climate. Basing himself on the experience of his travels, and on experiments, he stressed the effect of climate, primarily thinking of heat and cold, on the physical frame of the individual, and, as a consequence, on the intellectual outlook of society. According to Montesquieu, other factors (laws, religion, and maxims of government) are of a non-physicalnature, and their influence, compared with that of climate, grows as civilization advances.
After the book was published, praise came to Montesquieu from the most varied headquarters. The Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote from London that the work would win the admiration of all the ages; an Italian friend spoke of reading it in an ecstasy of admiration; the Swiss scientist Charles Bonnet said that Montesquieu had discovered the laws of the intellectual world as Newton had those of the physical world. The philosophers of the Enlightenment accepted him as one of their own, as indeed he was. His fame was now worldwide. But renown lay lightly on his shoulders. His affability and modesty are commented on by all who met him. He was a faithful friend, kind and helpful to young and unestablishcd men of letters, witty, though absent-minded,in society.