In connection with what a comma can be put and not put in the same, at first glance, cases? Russian punctuation does not give an unequivocal answer to this question, being 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. Let's try to find all possible explanations for the complex union "in connection with what".
Union in brief
The function of the union is clear from the name. This small utility structure is designed to logically connect the parts of a common sentence, to show their relationship. The classification of unions is diverse, let's briefly dwell on the main points.
Coordinating conjunctions connect equal parts of a sentence (I bought apples and pears), subordinating conjunctions highlight the main and dependent elements (we went home because it was cold).
Simple unions consist of one word (and, or, but), they can also be repeated. Compound conjunctions (because, because) have two or more words in their composition.
Closelyconnected with the previous gradation of unions into derivatives and non-derivatives. The difference is that derivative conjunctions can be easily confused with other parts of speech if not put into context (thanks to, while). And non-derivatives are not capable of such transformations.
Our today's hero - the union "in connection with what" - is subordinating, compound and derivative. The last definition will be of most interest to us. After all, it depends on the derivative whether a comma is placed before "in connection with what" or not.
Complex sentences
It would be logical to assume that subordinating conjunctions are used in complex sentences. What are their characteristics?
Like compound sentences, such sentences consist of several grammatical bases. But further differences begin. A complex sentence will necessarily include a main and controlled basis.
I have a lot of extra work to do, so I'm taking some of my assignments home.
In this example, a comma is placed before "associated". And there is no doubt about its necessity, because we clearly distinguish between two bases, where the first is the cause, and the second (main) is the effect. In this case, the union indicates a consequence (a person takes work home), which occurs for a certain reason (a person has a lot of extra work).
But is there a comma after "in connection with what"? The answer is negative. Union must be closely relatedwith the stem to which it refers.
Unusual transformation
However, there is one case when a comma is placed after the union we are considering. This is a construction "due to the fact that". Let's try to change the example above and follow the changes. The meaning of the sentence remains the same. But now the union "in connection" already indicates the reason:
Because I have a lot of extra work to do, I'm taking some of the assignments home.
I'm taking some assignments home because I don't have to do a lot of extra work.
As you can see from the examples, cause and effect can be interchanged. Now the relative construction "by that" has also been added to the union - 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
The union "in connection" is not always used in complex sentences. Let's prove it with the following example:
Fire fires are strictly prohibited due to increased fire hazard.
"Increase in fire hazard" is not an independent basis, but only a circumstance of the reason indicated by the union "in connection". Is a comma needed in this case? Not needed.
It is worth noting that it is quite possible to start a sentence with this circumstance if our goal is to emphasize the reason.
Due to promotionfire hazard bonfires are strictly prohibited.
Stationery turnover
Derivative unions are firmly entrenched in colloquial speech, journalism and official documents, adopting their specific vocabulary and phrase structure. This is how the purely clerical phrase "in connection with the above" appeared. A more sophisticated option is also possible - "in connection with the above".
In connection with the above, I ask you to accept for consideration the candidacy of Novoseltsev A. E. for the post of head of the light industry department.
It is clear that before that, the document listed the merits of the employee and substantiated his competence. All this "the above" was the reason for filing the application, but we do not see it in this proposal. Therefore, after "in connection with the above" the comma is also not put.
Interrogative sentences
Let's go back to the first sentence of the article. This time it will be an example.
In connection with what a comma can be put and not put in the same, at first glance, cases?
This sentence also has only one grammatical stem, which means no extra commas are required. We can easily replace "in connection with what" with a simple "why" or a 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 connection". Pretext"in" and the noun "connections" were used together so often 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.
There is little interference with the central command post at the moment.
Immediately the emphasis in the word "connections" attracts attention - now it falls on the first syllable. This is a sure indicator that the word is used in its direct meaning, perhaps referring to radio communications or telegraph. The sentence is simple in composition, with one grammatical basis, which means that commas are not needed here.
It is worth noting that such uses are extremely rare and limited to specific applications. Most often, "in connection" is used in speech precisely as a complex union, indicating a consequence or a cause.
Once again about alliances
So, when is a comma put - before or after the union "in connection"? Or maybe both sides?
- If the sentence is complex, put a comma before this union, unless, of course, it is at the very beginning.
- If we are dealing with the construction "due to the fact that" - a comma is placed only after the union.
- In simple and interrogative sentences, the union is not separated by commas.
- If it is not a conjunction, but a noun with a preposition, they are also not marked on the letter with any punctuation marks.
In generalyou can see that the union "in connection" is never distinguished by commas on both sides, since it, being a subordinator, is always closely connected with one of the grammatical stems.
Organization of punctuation marks in Russian only at first glance seems to be a difficult task. If you think at least a little about the reasons why a comma is present in a sentence (or not), everything can be easily decomposed into grammatical shelves. Repeated repetition is sure to develop a sense of intuition in the most confusing cases.
Correct and memorable examples for each point of the rule also help to overcome difficulties. Come up with your own short and funny examples - with them the grammar of the great and mighty will not be scary at all!
