Jump to content

Talk:Shcha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pronunciation in Russian

[edit]

If this letter is called shcha it seems odd that the Russian pronuncation is not shch. I've read various guides to Russian pronunciation and none can agree - some say it is shch, others a "long" sh. Why this difference of opinion? Does it make a difference where you come from in Russia? If there are regional differences perhaps these could be explained in the article. Thanks. Muntfish 10:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more accurate to say that it's a palatized version of sh. That is, a voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative. I'll add a line in the article, but attention from a slavist would be helpful.Ibadibam 18:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I take that back - the article covers it well enough in IPA. I'll add links to the symbols.Ibadibam 18:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both "shch" and "long sh" are considered correct in Russian for a letter "Щ". But "shch" is quite rare in current standard Russian speech. Pronouncing "Щ" as shch was considered more "educate" in 19th century, but currently there's no difference. There's some information on these topics in Russian Wikipedia. 89.179.247.65 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Фёдор[reply]

"Щ has been preserved as a letter in Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, but in other Slavic languages it has gradually evolved into other consonants."

This statement is a little confusing/misleading. Other Slavic languages have preserved this sound, except they don't write it as one letter. Polish, for example, has two forms: szcz (hard) and ść (soft). It exists in Slovenian as well, like in the name of the language "slovenščina". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasnie (talkcontribs) 07:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Щ" is transliterated as "shch" but pronounced as /ɕɕ/ in modern Russian. There are still some speakers who speak with Ukrainian or Polish accent (or foreigners speaking in Russian). They preserve the old pronunciation /ɕʨ/. --Atitarev (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, any /ɕʨ/ pronuncication is evidently reveals a foreiner in modern Russian (the majority of current russian population simply do not know of it previous /ɕʨ/ form). In russian primary school it is defined as a palatized Ш, without any /t/ - at least from 1988 when I attend it. --4th-otaku (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article also does not mention dialect differences within Russian, as related by most Russian grammars, viz., "the consonant щ is pronounced in accordance with the standard Moscow pronunciation as a long (i.e., double) ш. Unlike the ordinary ш it is always soft. In Leningrad, щ is pronounced as a soft шч." [I.M. Pulkina, A Short Russian Reference Grammar; 9th Edition. Russky Yazyk Publishers, Moscow: 1990. Page 15.] Of course, beyond this there is also the question of how much the effects of television/radio may have leveled this difference in the intervening years. Polemyx (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is ɕ doubled? How is /ɕ/ different from /ɕɕ/?--2.245.204.187 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration of the letter

[edit]

Quite a few English teachers here in Ukraine I asked personally are amazingly unanimous in insisting of STCH being the right transliteration for the letter. When told it is difficult for an English speaker to read "STCH" (let alone get it sounded right), some of them advise for SCH. Still they seem to dislike the SHCH variant.

On the other hand, "STCH" usually perplexes other Ukrainians and Russians. They seem to favor "SCH" with "SHCH" accepted as well. The first one appeals due to its brevity probably, and the second calls for those actually trying to think like a foreigner attempting to pronounce a word correctly.

A possible answer

[edit]

Shape of the letter

[edit]

The article does not discuss the shape of the letter, in particular the typographical difference between the shcha and the similar-looking letter sha. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good issue, especially since this letter's shape originated in the Glagolitic alphabet. The Glagolitic letters should probably be mentioned in their respective Cyrillic letters' articles. Michael Z. 2009-01-13 23:10 z