I saw this on a website, and although I understand the meaning of the sentence, and I know that it would have the same meaning without вот, I'm curious as to what nuance it brings, or perhaps some insight into the speakers impetus to include it and under what conditions.

Я равнодушен к холоду, но вот жары не переношу.

  • But the question is: can be translated only in this way Но вот в чем вопрос:
    – Avtokod
    Apr 26, 2015 at 13:42
  • @Avtokod: Sorry, I missed your point.
    – CocoPop
    Apr 26, 2015 at 13:44
  • это, вот это is связка, связочное образование, e.g. Летать — вот его мечта! or Летать — вот это его мечта!. Represent the meaning of specificity combined with a way to point out // передает значение идентичности в сочетании с указательностью.
    – Avtokod
    Apr 26, 2015 at 14:24
  • @CocoPop I think, your "а вот"-question is sure related ( this one ).
    – Shady_arc
    Apr 26, 2015 at 20:46
  • 1
    That вот has another role, in my understanding, in that it strengthens the contrasting force of 'a' in front of it. That's why I chose to formulate a new question with this new example.
    – CocoPop
    Apr 26, 2015 at 21:30

2 Answers 2


That's emphasis on something being the new topic of the established discussion. It's used similarly to English "here's" or "that's" or "it's".

The phrase could be translated this way:

I don't mind cold, but here's something I can't stand: heat.


I don't mind cold, it's heat I can't stand.

If you use the second part of this phrase without вот, this could be the first phrase in a conversation to bring up the topic of weather tolerance.

But if you use вот, your party would be curious why would you mention heat or cold all of a sudden, if it had not been the topic already.

  • вот in the OP is a particle or an adverb // частица или наречие?
    – Avtokod
    Apr 26, 2015 at 15:42
  • @Avtokod: particle, of course. An adverb is supposed to answer a question.
    – Quassnoi
    Apr 26, 2015 at 15:57
  • I doubt that OP question might be illustrated with examples with adverbs. I'm not so sure that's a good idea.
    – Avtokod
    Apr 26, 2015 at 16:30
  • @Avtokod: Particles are normally words that reflect the speakers attitude towards what he's saying, and if the interpretation includes the use of adverbs or any other part of speech, I don't see anything wrong with that. The bottom line is that he explained this perfectly and now I understand it. So it's not just a good idea - it's a great idea!
    – CocoPop
    Apr 26, 2015 at 18:38
  • @CocoPop I think it is OK if using adverbs aids your understanding, however, here it may also confuse you. After all, "Вот" is also used in "Here is my table"-type sentences. I think, it would be much better to find some good sample sentences with "а вот", "но вот", "только вот", "вот только", "вот и всё", "и вот в чём вопрос/сложность", "вот я и / вон он и / вот мы и" etc., group them and drill the particular patterns to understand them better.
    – Shady_arc
    Apr 26, 2015 at 20:58

As noted Shady_arc: 'I think, your "а вот" - question is sure related ( this one )'

Я равнодушен к холоду,а вотжары не переношу.exactly the same.

В примере, кроме частицы вот, еще один интересный случай. Для слова жара будет предпочтительнее старая книжная норма, которая требовала родительный падеж перед глаголом с отрицанием. Однако возможна и вариация : Зато смородина жару не любит

В данном примере, Я равнодушен к холоду, а вот жар́у не переношу. Однако доводом против здесь будет омонимия, связанная с иным ударением, ж́ару не переношу.

Вариативность родительного и винительного падежей:

  Я не брал карандаша.        (I did not take the pencil.)
  Я не брал карандаш.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.