Non-Fiction: Opinion Column — Колонка думок | Ukrainian Grammar

An opinion column lives or dies by its voice. Where an encyclopedia hides its author behind agentless passives, an op-ed foregrounds a thinking person who concedes, doubts, insists, and asks the reader pointed questions. The grammar that carries this voice is a small kit of stance markers, concessive connectors, rhetorical questions, and carefully graded modality — the difference between безпере́чно (undoubtedly) and ймові́рно (probably) is the difference between a claim and a hedge. This page presents a short, authentic-style column excerpt and walks through the machinery of argumentative Ukrainian.

The text

На мою́ ду́мку, ми надмі́рно поспіша́ємо назва́ти кни́жку «застарі́лою». Безпере́чно, екра́н зручні́ший: він мі́ститься в кише́ні, ва́жить ме́нше за я́блуко, вмища́є ці́лу бібліоте́ку. Та чи спра́вді шви́дкість читання́ — це те са́ме, що глибина́ розумі́ння? Хоч цифрові́ за́соби й полегши́ли до́ступ до те́ксту, проте́ во́ни, як на ме́не, привчи́ли нас ковза́ти по пове́рхні, ра́дше ніж занурюва́тися.
In my view, we are too hasty in calling the book "outdated." Undoubtedly, the screen is more convenient: it fits in a pocket, weighs less than an apple, holds a whole library. But is the speed of reading really the same thing as the depth of understanding? Although digital tools have indeed made access to text easier, they have nonetheless — as it seems to me — trained us to skim across the surface rather than to dive in.

Мо́жна, зви́чайно, припусти́ти, що зви́чка чита́ти посту́пово пове́рнеться, щойно мине́ пе́рша хви́ля захо́плення нови́м. Проте́ очеви́дно, що техноло́гія не нейтра́льна: во́на непомі́тно фо́рмує те, як ми ми́слимо. Ось чому́ нам, як на ме́не, ва́рто було́ б не відмовля́тися від екра́на, а навчи́тися ним кори́стуватися — свідо́мо обира́ючи, коли́ ковза́ти, а коли́ чита́ти пові́льно. Зре́штою, не техноло́гія чита́є за́мість нас; чита́ємо все ще ми.
One may, of course, suppose that the habit of reading will gradually return, as soon as the first wave of fascination with the new has passed. Yet it is evident that technology is not neutral: it imperceptibly shapes the way we think. That is why, it seems to me, we ought not to renounce the screen but to learn to use it — consciously choosing when to skim and when to read slowly. After all, it is not technology that reads in our place; it is still we who read.

Line-by-line grammar

We move through the column in order. Every stance device gets its own example so you can lift it straight into your own argumentative writing.

1. The opening stance marker: на мою́ ду́мку

A column almost always opens by planting a flag: на мою́ ду́мку ("in my view, to my mind"). It is the C1 columnist's equivalent of "I think," but more measured and more literate. Grammatically it is на + the accusative of моя́ ду́мка.

На мою́ ду́мку, ми надмі́рно поспіша́ємо назва́ти кни́жку «застарі́лою».

In my view, we are too hasty in calling the book 'outdated.'

Variants graded by formality: по-мо́єму (informal, "to my mind"), як на ме́не (conversational, "as for me / the way I see it"), вважа́ю, що (plain, "I consider that"). See stance and opinion markers.

2. The authorial "we": ми поспіша́ємо

The columnist writes ми ... поспіша́ємо ("we are too hasty"), but does not mean a literal group. This is the authorial / inclusive ми, pulling the reader into a shared "we" so the criticism lands as collective self-reflection rather than finger-pointing.

Ми надмі́рно поспіша́ємо назва́ти кни́жку застарі́лою.

We are too hasty in calling the book outdated.

Note the predicate instrumental застарі́лою after назва́ти ("to call X something") — calling-and-naming verbs put the label in the instrumental.

3. High-certainty stance: безпере́чно, очеви́дно

To grant a point with full confidence, the columnist uses sentence adverbs of certainty: безпере́чно ("undoubtedly") and the parenthetical очеви́дно ("evidently, clearly"). These are concession tools — you concede the strong, obvious point so you can pivot to your real argument. Note that when "evident" heads a що-clause ("it is evident that…"), Ukrainian uses the parenthetical очеви́дно, що…, not вочеви́дь — the latter is a plain manner adverb ("openly, visibly") and is not set off by a comma.

Безпере́чно, екра́н зручні́ший: він мі́ститься в кише́ні.

Undoubtedly, the screen is more convenient: it fits in a pocket.

Проте́ очеви́дно, що техноло́гія не нейтра́льна.

Yet it is evident that technology is not neutral.

4. The comparative of inequality: ме́нше за, ра́дше ніж

Argument runs on comparison. Two patterns appear: ва́жить ме́нше за я́блуко ("weighs less than an apple"), with за + accusative, and ра́дше ніж занурюва́тися ("rather than to dive in"), with ніж + a parallel form. за and ніж are interchangeable after a comparative, but ніж is required before a clause or an infinitive.

Екра́н ва́жить ме́нше за я́блуко, а вмища́є ці́лу бібліоте́ку.

The screen weighs less than an apple, yet holds a whole library.

See the comparative degree and comparative conjunctions.

5. The rhetorical question: чи спра́вді…?

The pivot of the whole piece is a question the author has no intention of answering neutrally. Та чи спра́вді ... — це те са́ме, що…? ("But is X really the same thing as Y?") uses the yes/no particle чи plus спра́вді ("really") to signal that the expected answer is "no." A rhetorical question lets the columnist assert without asserting.

Та чи спра́вді шви́дкість читання́ — це те са́ме, що глибина́ розумі́ння?

But is the speed of reading really the same thing as the depth of understanding?

Note the nominalizations шви́дкість читання́ (the speed of reading) and глибина́ розумі́ння (the depth of understanding) — abstract nouns built from a verb (чита́ти → читання́) and an adjective (глибо́кий → глибина́). Argumentative prose thinks in such abstractions; see nominalization.

6. Concession: хоч … й …, проте́ …

The hallmark of fair-minded argument is conceding the opponent's point before countering it. The frame here is the paired хоч … проте́ ("although … nonetheless"), reinforced by the emphatic particle й inside the concessive clause: Хоч цифрові́ за́соби й полегши́ли ..., проте́ во́ни ... привчи́ли нас…

Хоч цифрові́ за́соби й полегши́ли до́ступ до те́ксту, проте́ во́ни привчи́ли нас ковза́ти по пове́рхні.

Although digital tools have indeed made access to text easier, they have nonetheless trained us to skim across the surface.

The й after the subject is not "and" here — it is an emphatic concessive particle ("do indeed / for all that"). English smooths it into "indeed." See concessive constructions and connectors of contrast and concession.

7. Hedged modality: мо́жна припусти́ти, ва́рто було́ б

Notice how the certainty drops when the author advances his own positive claim rather than conceding the opponent's. He shifts into hedged, impersonal modality: Мо́жна ... припусти́ти, що… ("One may suppose that…") and нам ... ва́рто було́ б… ("we ought to…," literally "for us it would be worth…"). The conditional було́ б softens the recommendation from a command into advice.

Мо́жна, зви́чайно, припусти́ти, що зви́чка чита́ти посту́пово пове́рнеться.

One may, of course, suppose that the habit of reading will gradually return.

Нам ва́рто було́ б не відмовля́тися від екра́на, а навчи́тися ним кори́стуватися.

We ought not to renounce the screen but to learn to use it.

These impersonal modals (мо́жна, ва́рто, тре́ба) take a dative experiencer (нам = "for us") and an infinitive. The conditional б attaches to the modal to grade obligation down to suggestion. See expressing probability, obligation, and advice and predicative adverbs.

8. Reformulating connectors: ось чому́, зре́штою

Columns are tightly threaded with connectors that tell the reader where the argument is going. ось чому́ ("that is why") draws a conclusion; зре́штою ("after all, in the end") signals the closing thought. They are the visible joints of the reasoning.

Ось чому́ нам, як на ме́не, ва́рто навчи́тися кори́стуватися екра́ном свідо́мо.

That is why, it seems to me, we ought to learn to use the screen consciously.

9. The cleft for emphasis: не техноло́гія чита́є … ; чита́ємо ми

The final sentence drives the thesis home with a contrastive cleft: не техноло́гія чита́є за́мість нас; чита́ємо все ще ми ("it is not technology that reads in our place; it is still we who read"). Ukrainian builds this emphasis with word order and a fronted не X, then re-states the verb with the true subject ми pushed to the end for focus.

Не техноло́гія чита́є за́мість нас; чита́ємо все ще ми.

It is not technology that reads in our place; it is still we who read.

Putting ми last is the focus position in Ukrainian's flexible word order — the most important word lands at the end. See emphasis: word order, це, and particles.

Glossary

Ukrainian	English	Register note
на мою́ ду́мку	in my view	neutral-formal stance opener
безпере́чно	undoubtedly	high-certainty adverb, for concession
очеви́дно, що…	it is evident that…	parenthetical predicative; comma + що-clause
проте́	yet, nonetheless	bookish contrast, stronger than але́
як на ме́не	as it seems to me	softer, semi-colloquial hedge
ва́рто (було́ б)	it is worth / one ought to	impersonal modal + dative + infinitive
зре́штою	after all, in the end	concluding discourse marker
ковза́ти по пове́рхні	to skim the surface	evaluative metaphor (vs занурюватися, to dive in)

Common mistakes

❌ В мою́ ду́мку, кни́жка не застарі́ла.

Incorrect preposition — the fixed phrase is на мою думку, not в мою думку.

✅ На мою́ ду́мку, кни́жка не застарі́ла.

In my view, the book is not outdated.

❌ Хоч за́соби полегши́ли до́ступ, але́ во́ни привчи́ли нас ковза́ти.

Mixed connectors — pair хоч with проте/однак, not with але́, in formal concession.

✅ Хоч за́соби й полегши́ли до́ступ, проте́ во́ни привчи́ли нас ковза́ти.

Although the tools did make access easier, they nonetheless trained us to skim.

❌ Нам ва́рто було́ б навчи́тися кори́стуватися екра́н.

Wrong case — користуватися governs the instrumental, so it must be екра́ном.

✅ Нам ва́рто було́ б навчи́тися кори́стуватися екра́ном.

We ought to learn to use the screen.

❌ Чи спра́вді шви́дкість це те са́ме як глибина́?

Wrong comparative connector — 'the same … as' is те саме, що, not те саме, як.

✅ Чи спра́вді шви́дкість — це те са́ме, що глибина́?

Is speed really the same thing as depth?

💡

An op-ed grades its certainty deliberately: it concedes with high-confidence markers (безпере́чно, очеви́дно, що…) and advances its own claims with hedges (мо́жна припусти́ти, ва́рто було́ б, як на ме́не). If you write a Ukrainian argument entirely in безпере́чно, you sound dogmatic; entirely in мо́жна припусти́ти, you sound evasive. Mastery is the rhythm of conceding hard and proposing softly.

Now practice Ukrainian

Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.

Start learning Ukrainian→