In this connection, a comma can be put and not put in identical cases, at first glance? Russian punctuation does not give an unambiguous answer to this question, rightfully considered one of the most difficult in the world. Many prepositions, conjunctions, and particles may require punctuation or remain as they are. Why is this happening? As you know, there are no random phenomena in the language. We will try to find all possible explanations for the complex alliance "in connection with what."
Briefly about the unions
The function of the union is already clear from the name. This small service structure is designed to logically connect parts of a common sentence, to show their relationship. The classification of unions is diverse; we will dwell briefly on the main points.
Composing unions combine the equal parts of the sentence (I bought apples and pears), subordinate unions highlight the main and dependent elements (we went home because it was cold).
Simple alliances consist of one word (and, or, but), and they can also be repeated. Compound unions (because, because) have two or more words in their composition.
Closely related to the previous gradation of unions for derivatives and non-derivatives. The difference is that derivative unions can be easily confused with other parts of speech, if not put into context (thanks, at the same time). And non-derivatives are not capable of such transformations.
Our today's hero - the union "in connection with what" - is subordinate, compound and derivative. The latter definition will be of most interest to us. After all, it depends on the productivity whether the comma is put in front of "in connection with what" or not.
Complicated sentences
It would be logical to assume that subordinate unions are used in complex sentences. What are their features?
Like complex sentences, such sentences consist of several grammatical bases. But then the continuous differences begin. A complex proposal will necessarily include a main and manageable framework.
I have to do a lot of extra work, so I take part of the tasks home.
In this example, a comma is placed before “in communication”. And there is no doubt about its necessity, because we clearly distinguish between the two foundations, where the first is the cause and the second (main) is the consequence. In this case, the union indicates a consequence (a person takes work home) that occurs for a specific reason (a person has a lot of additional work).
But is there a comma after "in connection with this"? The answer is negative. The union must be closely linked to the foundation to which it belongs.
Unusual transformation
However, there is one case when a comma is placed after the union we are considering. This is a "due to what" design. Let's try to change the example above and track the changes. The meaning of the proposal remained the same. But now the union "in communication" already indicates the reason:
Due to the fact that I have to do a lot of extra work, I take part of the tasks home.
I take part of the tasks home due to the fact that m do not have to do a lot of extra work.
As can be seen from the examples, cause and effect can change places. Now the relative construction is added to the union “by the fact that” - it always has a comma in its composition. However, in this case, a comma is placed next to the union “in connection” only on one side.
Simple sentences
Far from always, the union “in connection” is used in complex sentences. We prove this with the following example:
Bonfire is strictly prohibited due to increased fire hazard.
"Increasing fire risk" is not an independent basis, but just a circumstance of the reason indicated by the union "in communication". Is a comma needed in this case? Need not.
It is worth noting that in this circumstance it is quite possible to start a proposal if our goal is to emphasize the reason.
Due to the increased fire hazard, burning fires is strictly prohibited .
Clerical turnover
Derivative unions are firmly entrenched in colloquial speech, journalism, and official documents, adopting their specific vocabulary and phrase construction. So the purely clerical phrase "in connection with the foregoing" appeared. A more sophisticated option is also possible - "in connection with the foregoing."
In connection with the foregoing, I ask you to accept the candidacy of A. Novoseltsev for the post of head of the light industry department.
It is clear that before this, the document listed the merits of the employee and justified his competence. All of this "above" was the reason for submitting the application, but we do not see it in this proposal. Therefore, after "in connection with the foregoing," the comma is also not put.
Interrogative sentences
Let us return to the first sentence of the article. This time it will become an example.
In this connection, a comma can be put and not put in identical cases, at first glance?
This sentence also has only one grammatical basis, which means that it does not require additional commas. We can easily replace “in this connection” with a simple “why” or more complex “for what reason”. These turns are also not separated by commas, since they cannot exist by themselves.
When a union is not a union
In the first chapter of the article, we pointed out the derivative nature of the union “in communication”. The preposition "in" and the noun "ties" were so often used together that they became a single semantic whole - a union. However, there are also infrequent cases when each of these elements is used in its direct, original meaning.
At the moment, there is little interference with the central command post.
The emphasis in the word "connection" immediately attracts attention - now it falls on the first syllable. This is a sure indicator that the word is used in its direct meaning, perhaps it means radio communication or a telegraph. The composition of the sentence is simple, with one grammatical basis, which means that commas are not needed here.
It is worth noting that such cases of use are extremely rare and are limited to specific areas of application. Most often, “in communication” is used in speech precisely as a complex union, indicating a consequence or cause.
Once again about unions
So, when is a comma placed - before or after the union “in communication”? Or maybe on both sides?
- If the sentence is complex, a comma should be put before this union, unless, of course, it is at the very beginning.
- If we are dealing with the construction "due to the fact that" - the comma is put only after the union.
- In simple and interrogative sentences, the union is not highlighted with commas.
- If this is not a union, but a noun with a preposition, they are also not marked on the letter with any punctuation marks.
In general, it can be noted that the union “in connection” is never distinguished by commas on both sides, since it, being subordinate, is always closely connected with one of the grammatical foundations.
The placement of punctuation marks in Russian only at first glance seems to be a difficult task. If you just think a little about the reasons why the sentence contains a comma (or it is not), everything can be easily sorted out into grammatical shelves. Repeated repetition will necessarily develop a sense of intuition in the most complicated cases.
Correct and memorable examples for each paragraph of the rule also help to overcome difficulties. Come up with your short and funny examples - with them the grammar of the great and mighty will not be scary at all!