In pairs, climb - climb, see - see, hear - hear, lift - raise the second colloquial vernacular option.

8. It is necessary to distinguish between the meanings of paired verbs of motion:

run - run
fly - fly
drive - drive
wear - carry
to carry - to carry
swim - swim
drive - drive
crawl - crawl
ride - ride
drag - drag
roll - roll
walk - walk
climb - climb

The first verbs in each pair denote an action without indicating a direction or an action that is not performed in one step (verbs of indefinite movement), and the second - an action that occurs in one direction, or an action that occurs continuously and at a certain moment (verbs of a definite movement). Wed: a truck carries bricks - a truck carries bricks; the plane flies over the forest - the plane flies over the forest; ducks swim in thickets of reeds - ducks swim to the shore, etc.

In some cases, both forms are acceptable, for example: A bus runs on this line every five minutes. - The bus runs on this line every five minutes. The difference between both options is as follows: walking has the meaning "back and forth", i.e. indicates movement not in one direction, but goes means only "there", i.e. indicates movement in one direction.

Wed also: go to the post office (movement in one direction) - do not go to the post office ("back and forth" and prefixed formations: a brother came to me ("arrived and is here" - my brother came to me ("was and left".

The meaning of the forms under consideration also depends on the context: when concretizing an action, verbs of a certain movement are used. Wed:

He drove us to the station this morning. - This morning he drove us to the station very quickly;

I went to work yesterday. - I was a little late when I went to work yesterday;

We went to the city that day. “We were not tired that day, because we drove to the city slowly.

9. The names of the means of land, mechanical and air transport are usually combined with the verb go, for example: The bus is on a new route; The train travels at a speed of 60 kilometers per hour; The tram goes to the park; Airplanes go (also fly) one after another, but: Trams do not run well. The word motorcycle is combined with the verb to drive, for example: The motorcycle was driving right at us.

The names of means of transportation on water are combined both with the verb to go and with the verb to sail, for example: Loaded barges go (float) down the river; A boat was (was sailing) near the shore; Torpedo boats are in the wake column; Ships are sailing in the sea.
10. Parallel forms of the masculine past tense of verbs with the suffix -newed - wilted, linden - stuck, blind - blind, rejected - rejected, bend - perished, resorted - resorted, terminated - terminated, refuted - denied, fluff - swollen equal ; forms dried out, froze, got wet, faded out, chilled in the presence of normative drying, frost, mock, quenched, chill are acceptable.

The expression "Throwing pearls in front of pigs" came from the Bible, more precisely - from the Gospel of Matthew. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ said: "Do not give holy things to dogs and do not throw your pearls in front of pigs, so that they do not trample it under their feet and, turning, do not tear you to pieces."

Pearls and beads

The expression "throwing pearls in front of pigs" came into Russian from the Church Slavonic text of Holy Scripture. In the Church Slavonic language, the word "beads" had a different meaning. Now small beads are called beads - in the modern world they are glass, in ancient times, as a rule, they were bone. But in the Church Slavonic language, the word "beads" was used to denote pearls.

Thus, the Savior was not talking about beads in the modern sense, but about pearls. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more thankless occupation than throwing such a jewel in front of pigs, expecting that the animals will be able to appreciate it.

The meaning of the expression

This quote from the Gospel, which has become a catch phrase, is capable of bewildering. In Christianity, unlike pagan religions (for example, Egyptian), there has never been any "secret knowledge" available only to a narrow circle of the elite. And the Christian faith itself is open to all people, regardless of their nationality - this religion does not know any discrimination. Therefore, it seems strange to compare some people with "pigs", before whom one should not throw precious pearls - the word of God.

Such a comparison is understandable for a Christian who has to communicate with unchurched and unbelieving people. In the modern world, any Christian is in such a situation - even monks have to at least occasionally deal with atheists.

Even if an unchurched person asks a Christian questions about faith, this does not always indicate a true desire to understand something, to learn something. This may be caused by the desire to mock the person, to see how he will cope with tricky questions. After such conversations, a Christian only feels tired and empty, which is by no means good for the soul, since it easily leads to the sin of despondency. The unbeliever will triumph over the victory and will be convinced of his righteousness, this will also hurt him.

It was against such conversations that the Savior warned his followers, urging them "not to throw pearls in front of pigs." Of course, this does not mean that unbelievers should be looked down upon, comparing them to pigs - this would be a manifestation of pride, but explaining the word of God to a person who does not want to perceive and understand it is not worth it.

Throwing pearls in front of pigs is to show innermost thoughts, feelings to those who are not able to understand, accept, appreciate them.
The origin of the phraseological unit is biblical. The Gospel of Matthew tells of Christ's conversations with his followers. In one of the sermons, the so-called Nagornaya, which is considered a "programmatic" in the teaching, it is said: "Do not give the holy things to the dogs and do not throw your pearls in front of the pigs, so that they do not trample it under their feet and, turning, do not tear you to pieces." : 6 "(this means the seventh chapter" Do not judge, that you will not be judged, "the sixth point).

What does the gospel mean?

Three meanings
• Good news, news of the coming of the Messiah
• The teachings of Jesus Christ
• The Writings of the Four Evangelists on the Life, Work, and Teachings of Christ

Who is Matthew?

Levi Matthew is one of the twelve apostles, that is, supporters, disciples of Christ. All that is known about him is that he was a tax collector, otherwise he was a tax collector. The Gospel of Luke says

“After this [Jesus] went out and saw the publican,
in the name of Levi, sitting at the collection of tolls,
and he said to him: follow me.
And he, leaving everything, got up and followed Him " (Wikipedia)

What is Matthew's Gospel?

The first book of the New Testament, which gives an idea of ​​the personality, genealogy and biography of Khrits, the main points of His teaching, also tells about various miracles performed by the Savior. Chapter seven contains an exposition of Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The book of Matthew was primarily intended for the Jews and was written in Aramaic, which was spoken in Palestine at the time.

Use of the expression "Throwing beads in front of pigs" in literature

- “I wanted to start talking about the trial of Migulin, but after the very first sentence I felt that no one was particularly interested, and suddenly fell silent. All this is useless. Throwing beads "... (Yu. Trifonov "Old Man")
- “And you, bastard, dared to mistake me for a White Guard? Me, a Russian pilot, Tentennikov? However, why throw pearls in front of the pigs, "Tentennikov said angrily, looking at Rigo with hatred."... (V. Sayanov "Earth and Sky")
- “The old woman was restrained, disgusting. Before sitting down at the instrument, she asked: "Do they understand?" - in the sense that it is worth throwing pearls in front of pigs. The priest nodded: they say it's worth it. "(V. Tokareva "Long Day").
- “But Chatsky was convicted not for the content of his speeches, but for their address. He throws beads in front of Famusov and Skalozub. "(M. Nechkina "Griboyedov and the Decembrists").
- “You’re silent. As monumental as bronze. It is you - according to the commandment: "Do not throw pearls in front of pigs" - yes? - I don't like sermons. And preachers, ”Samghin said dryly.”(M. Gorky "The Life of Klim Samgin").
- "Michelle, you have forgotten the commandment of the Savior: do not throw beads in front of pigs"(Belinsky. Letter to M. A. Bakunin, November 1, 1837).

A line from the Bible: do not throw pearls in front of pigs. What is the meaning of it?

Do not throw beads in front of the pigs, otherwise they will trample it under their feet and turn against you.

In the Bible, in the New Testament there is a line: "Do not throw pearls in front of the pigs, otherwise they will trample it under their feet, and then turn against you." It was not someone there who said this, but the Master himself - Jesus Christ. It is clear that here under pigs are meant not (c) only animals, but, first of all, people of the corresponding, pig-oriented orientation, so to speak.

Even earlier, after reading this phrase, it became clear to me, in principle, what he meant. In more detail, it is not worth trying to please, to be torn to pieces, to bow (etc.) in front of those who look like people only externally, but inside they are pigs, i.e. animals. Otherwise, they will not only not appreciate what was done for them, but even start a conflict or something worse - with the one who pleases THEM (!), These pigs.

But the FULL meaning of this phrase came to me just recently. What are beads? This is what a person does with diligence, perhaps, cutting each bead separately, trying to give it the character and shine of a diamond (well, of course, ideally ... really - this is how much time, effort and skill in this matter ). Naturally, if something like that is done for someone, then in this is manifested, in particular, the kindness of a person (the one who throws beads) towards another.

Still, why is it not recommended to throw beads - just in front of pigs (pig people)? Why does advice unambiguously follow from this phrase - to behave, communicate and interact with such “people” in a different way? Let's not ask ourselves how exactly - in a different way. Perhaps - with your hands, perhaps - with your feet, perhaps - with a whip, with a weapon in your hands, or ... but, we will repeat, we will not talk about this, for this is a separate conversation.

For a long time, the full meaning of this phrase was not given to me. And all because in order to comprehend it ... it is necessary, at least for a moment, to penetrate inside the pig-man, to feel his essence inwardly and to realize it. One thing is verbal constructions like “he is a pig-man,” “they are pig-people,” and so on. Words are just words, they are not understanding ... and often do not even reflect an understanding of the essence. Words are just sounds of a voice (or images of letters on paper, a monitor), nothing more. But in order to realize the meaning of words, so that they become unnecessary (when everything is already clear without them), for this it is necessary not only to communicate with the pig, but also to climb, roughly speaking, inside him (her). It was then that the pig begins not only to see at a distance, but appears, so to speak, with its whole person.

What does a humanoid pig think (feel) when they start throwing beads in front of it? Well, of course, at first - she likes it. Like scratching the back. She can even grunt enough, purr ..., in general, to express how much she can do it, the state of comfort given to her. However, we note that this is on condition that if it is a pig - normal, not crazy. Anything can be expected from a madwoman. There are also such (finished) specimens for which even scratching the back does not give almost any comfort. But who, however, did not cease to be pigs from this (we repeat: yes, precisely - pigs, and not poor people - sick people). For example, if this is a woman, then they are called bitches. There are slightly different terms for men.

So at first she likes it. But soon (as a rule, VERY soon) a thought arises in her. Moreover, for someone - on a subconscious level ... But if you have an advanced pig (confused by the study of modern psychological theories or something else), then she may well understand this even on a conscious level.

So, there is quite such a simple, unpretentious (like everything that a pig has) thought-question: why on earth, in fact, they scratch my back? It is characteristic, by the way, that an animal (not a humanoid pig, namely a natural animal) is, as a rule, incapable of such a thing: it just sincerely feels comfortable, as they say, “go crazy” and thanks (as it can) for it. But for anthropoids, it is more difficult there: mind games are turned on there. But, we repeat, since the mind of humanoid pigs, by definition, is unpretentious, then thoughts, more precisely, their scraps, will be straightforward and simple, even unnecessary. And such a "person" as if casually asks himself: why on earth ...? At the same time, he clearly understands that, most likely, he didn’t deserve such a blessing in any way (for he realizes his swinish, in fact, worthless, nature), and here - on you. He was given such an honor - beads were thrown in front of him ...

If, we repeat, it was a natural animal, it would not ask a similar question. And the anthropoid ... and what can they say to themselves in this case? After all, the feeling of kindness is unknown to them even in embryo. Therefore, the humanoid at first sincerely does not understand, well, WHY they suddenly did something good to him. And therefore, he soon begins to judge this act, naturally, from his own point of view. And it is such that any action that a humanoid pig ever does is aimed at satisfying its instincts and achieving a state of comfort (which is sometimes expressed aloud by it, like harmony ... but, it is clear that harmony was not close here; comfort and harmony relate to each other in about the same way as eclecticism and dialectics - they are generally fundamentally different things). In other words, the anthropoid pig operates in full accordance with the market model of the economy; it is this behavior of the subject in the theory of economics that is considered rational and justified. Actions that do not bring her benefits (material and / or moral), she definitely will never do ... well, unless she wants to have fun out of boredom. And even then, hardly.

Those. the pig begins to think: aha, since they scratch my back, it means ... they expect or want some benefit from me in the future (otherwise - well, who would need to do something nice for me ??? ... why ??? ... well, who am I - a pig- then - a hundred years is needed ??? ...). Indeed, it cannot be otherwise, in her understanding. If you ask her about this, she can say with a smile: "So they scratch my back here, is it really unclear what, CONSEQUENTLY, DEPEND ON me." True, he may remain silent, but the leitmotif of the train of thought will be something like this.

So, they did good to the humanoid pig, helped in something, stroked the back (threw the beads). She smiled for a moment, and immediately a certain “royalty” appeared inside, the feeling of which, by the way, is not typical of pigs at all (and, therefore, is harmful to their psyche). “Tsarity”, based on the idea that a person has appeared who depends on her and even, they say, himself secretly admits this, doing good for her.

We repeat, the feeling of kindness, virtue is unknown to the pig-people. If she is capable of responding with good to good, then, perhaps, out of boredom or, another option - for economic gain - so that the back is scratched even more and better - then she can even create the appearance of reciprocal good (in full accordance with rational behavior of an economic entity). Therefore, she has only one way left - to treat the one who does her good as a doormat. Which you can wipe the floor, squeeze everything out of it, and then - and throw it away as unnecessary, if that. And at the same time, with a smile inside, think: “Well, that's it, since this person created comfort for me (threw the beads), he will not go anywhere from me now, I can do whatever I want with him. For he is trying to suck up, sneak up on me. "

Nature did not foresee any other way for it (no matter what churchmen, psychologists and other "optimists" might say). By its very essence, incapable of sincere goodness, sincere feelings and relationships (and if it is capable, then perhaps for the purpose of toadying - to make a fake for sincerity), the humanoid pig, of course, will consider everyone around only in this plane. Those. goodness towards her, she even THEORETICALLY will not be able to assess other than toadying. That is why she has a feeling of "royalty" in such a case. Yes, unfortunately, so it is "iron" and naturally ...

In the next moment (where, where, and in such situations, the anthropoid pig thinks surprisingly quickly and clearly), she is already moving on. And he thinks: “so, since this person is doing good to me, he shows me that he depends on me and expects to get something from me ... so it means that he is just a banal weakling, a fool; since he cannot communicate with me by other methods. " Once they say, "gave up" and began to scratch my back - that's what he needs. I will use it now.

What methods of communication does a pig have? Naturally, for the most part, power (physical, moral-psychological, legal, social - depending on the level of strength, intelligence, the presence of connections and other opportunities) - there, of course, where she knows that she will prevail. And where she cannot gain, there she can even (depending on the level of development) say different words (well, there about friendship, love, honesty, reliability), in order to somehow influence the conscience and other mental properties of the person with whom she is communicates.

If she sees that a person ... not only does good for her (throws beads), but also ... DOES NOT USE forceful methods in relation to her ... if he is not only not evil and not a bastard, but, on the contrary, is kind, honest and sincere with her ... so what kind of person is this, in her understanding? This is, they say, and in fact, a rag, not a man. After all, subconsciously, she longs to get the OUTPUT from him. For it is written in her subconscious how worthless she is. Unfortunately, no matter how you try to look at the pig optimistically, with hope and goodness, besides worthlessness (well, crap, of course), it has practically nothing. That is why (subconsciously, as a rule) he does not expect anything but reward "according to merit" for such his nature. Already someone, and a pig more than everyone else, tends to walk in a circle of causes and effects.

And with that person who will give a little something - yes, and will give a good deal on the scruff of the neck, or even push him into a puddle - there the humanoid pig will be, as they say, peace and quiet (and, very often, and "love" !! ). Just such a pig considers his friends, and falls in love with such. True, there is "friendship" as well as "love", how to put it ... smacks of burnt. For - a little bit of a partner has weakened or a little lost his position - and that's it ... the other immediately seeks to seize power over him or simply throw it away as unnecessary. But, while the forces are more or less equal, such anthropoid people communicate for years, if not decades, considering themselves good friends. And they even help each other in some way.

Here it is. And it turns out, in reality, in exact accordance with what Jesus Christ said over 2000 years ago. Indeed, a human is a human, and a pig is a pig (well, and Caesar is Caesar, etc.). When does this appear? For example, in relations between men and women, more precisely, between. Beads are clearly not for pigs. Therefore, they react to it the way Jesus Christ voiced.

Best regards to you all.

Really rich speech is replete with graceful epithets, apt comparisons, capacious idioms. To skillfully use all the abundance of beauties of the Russian language, you need to know and understand the interpretation of words and So, for example, what does the idiom “throw pearls in front of pigs” mean? We need to figure this out.

The meaning of phraseological units

You can not consider the interpretation of an idiom according to the meaning of each individual word in its composition. Phraseologism, first of all, is stable and therefore you need to work with the entire structure at once. This is the main difficulty of translation. Literally, the essence of phraseological units cannot be conveyed, they exist within the same language, therefore, vary depending on the people and their culture.

In this article we will try to answer the question, what does it mean to "throw beads"? How did it happen that pigs and shiny beads were captured in one expression? Probably, in order to give the phraseological unit a clear negative color, to connect objects that, in principle, do not combine. Indeed, since this expression is used when they want to warn a person against wasting energy and energy in an attempt to influence another person.

According to the dictionaries of phraseological units, the expression "pearls do not throw in front of pigs" means "no need to try to prove and explain something to someone who is not able to understand your motives and will not appreciate your efforts properly." It is difficult to disagree with the centuries-old wisdom contained in these words.

The history of the origin of the expression "do not throw pearls in front of pigs"

This phraseological unit has existed for a very long time. The authorship of these words belongs to Jesus. In his Sermon on the Mount, delivered on the slope in front of the disciples and the crowd of people gathered, he urged them not to throw pearls to pigs, so that they would not trample and tear to pieces the one who threw precious stones. This wisdom has come down to us thanks to the evangelist Matthew.

In the original version, as you can see, the phraseologism "throwing beads" contains the word "pearl". In our time, the expression exists in two versions. After all, what's the difference? The pig is unlikely to be able to distinguish between beautiful sea pearls and shiny substitute glass. Likewise, a person who does not want to properly understand what he is told will not notice the difference between authenticity and falsehood.

Another interesting detail: the word "seed beads" came into the Old Church Slavonic language from Arabic through Turkic. In the original, it meant "fake pearls".

As you can see, the expression "do not throw pearls in front of pigs" has a very old and sacred history. The fact that it has survived so many centuries speaks of its wisdom and relevance at any time.

Synonyms

In the Russian language, there are countless ways to express your unwillingness to engage in useless business, to explain something to people who do not want to understand the words you said. The phraseologism "do not throw pearls in front of pigs" is only one of the possible options. The synonyms for this expression can vary depending on the desired meaning. For example, you can say “you are doing useless work” in the following ways: “pushing water in a mortar”, “carrying water in a sieve”, “carrying firewood into the forest”, “doing Sisyphean labor”, “pouring from empty to empty”.

The interpretation “to explain something to a person who does not want to understand” has the following phraseological units: “you cannot brew beer with fools”, “like peas against a wall”, “you tell him, but he’s not kicked in the tooth”.

Although the meaning of many phraseological units can be described in one word, in the case of the expression “beads in front of pigs do not dare” this is unlikely to be done, but you can use it instead of many emotionally pale phrases. Worth a try. For example, saying “throw pearls in front of pigs” instead of “having a useless discussion with an uninterested person” or “trying to convince someone who does not want to listen to weighty arguments”. The speech will only become more beautiful.

Antonyms

It is a great happiness if you manage to meet a good interlocutor who knows how to listen and willingly delves into the essence of the dialogue. In the company of such a person, you want to "plunge into conversation with your head", "to be filled with a nightingale."

They say that “they don’t throw pearls in front of pigs”, but nevertheless it is worth trying to interest the opponent with your point of view, “put everything on the shelves” and “explain on your fingers”. Or ask him about his vision of events. It can be so unexpected and interesting that you will listen "with bated breath", "without taking a breath" and "catching every word."

The antonymic meaning of the phraseological unit “do not throw pearls in front of pigs” is expressed in the following words: “to communicate with a good interlocutor, equal to oneself. And also to enjoy this communication and exchange of views. "

The use of the expression "do not throw pearls in front of pigs" in literature and colloquial speech

It would be strange if such an ancient, wise and effective phraseological unit were not actively used by writers of all times. The 18th century English diplomat and writer Earl of Chesterfield used it in his Letters to his Son. In them, he says that you should not waste yourself on communication with "empty-headed youths" who are not able to heed reasonable arguments, because it is just as useless as throwing pearls in front of pigs. Earl of Chesterfield was not the first and not the only one who noted the effectiveness of this phraseological unit.

But don't assume that fixed expressions are good only in novels and novellas. The speech of each of us will become much more beautiful if we turn to folk wisdom and diversify our vocabulary with it. After all, every word in Russian phraseological units was selected with special care: they contain that cherished meaning that will be relevant for many more centuries.

And remember, dear readers: there is no need to throw pearls in front of pigs. Better to save it for those who can appreciate the true brilliance of your thought.