Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-05, 17:25

Just in case anyone's interested, here's Polish IPA, the current spelling, my Cyrillic orthography and my Latin transcription (which also works as a revised Latin orthography).

IPA Latin Cyr. Trans.

b b б b
ɕ ś ш(ь) ś
s(i)
d d д d
dz dz дз dz
dʑ dź дж(ь) dź
dz(i)
dʐ dż дж dž
f f ф f
ɡ g г g
ɡʲ g(i) г(ь) g(j)
j j, i й* j
k k к k
kʲ k(i) к(ь) k(j)
l l л l
m m м m
n n н n
ɲ ń н(ь) ń
n(i)
ŋ n н n
p p п p
r r р r
s s с s
ʂ sz ш š
t t т t
tɕ ć ч(ь) ć
c(i)
ts c ц c
tʂ cz ч č
v w в v
w ł ў ŭ
x ch, h х ch
xʲ h(i) х(ь) ch(j)
z z з z
ʑ ź ж(ь) ź
z(i)
ʐ ż ж ž
rz

a a а, я a
ɛ e е, э e
ɛ̃ ę ѧ, ѩ ę
i i и i
ɨ y ы y
ɔ o о o
ɔ̃ ą ѫ, ѭ ǫ
u u у, ю u
ó
* Also spelled е, ю,я

The only problems are the u-breve and the yuses, which are not commonly found on keyboards.

User avatar
Milya0
Posts: 550
Joined: 2009-10-19, 16:17
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby Milya0 » 2010-06-05, 17:31

Yes, that's true but since Polish /l/ doesn't have a hard counterpart anymore,

"Ł" is hard counterpart, as in "szkoła - szkole".

ɕ ś ш(ь) ś
tɕ ć ч(ь) ć
ʑ ź ж(ь) ź
dʑ dź дж(ь) dź

Ouch!

I'd make it so:
ɕ ś с(ь) ś
tɕ ć т(ь) ć
ʑ ź з(ь) ź
dʑ dź д(ь) dź
Qroo₃₁ kaa₄ cro₂ kraa₃ kaa₄ qo₄₁ cra₄₁ ka₄ qoo₄₂ krá₄₂.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-05, 17:50

"Ł" is hard counterpart, as in "szkoła - szkole".
Grammatically. Phonetically, they're entirely different sounds now.
I'd make it so:

ɕ ś с(ь) ś
tɕ ć т(ь) ć
ʑ ź з(ь) ź
dʑ dź д(ь) dź
This is just following the current orthography. In Cyrillic, it makes more sense to use the letters that already exist for these sounds. What you have there are palatalized alveolars, not postalveolars.

Here's an example:

Wszyscy ludzie rodzą się wolni i równi pod względem swej godności i swych praw. Są oni obdarzeni rozumem i sumieniem i powinni postępować wobec innych w duchu braterstwa.

Вшысцы лудже родзѫ волни и рувни под взглѧдэм свэй годнощи и свых прав. Сѫ они обдажэни розумэм и суменем и повинни постѧповачь вобэц инных в духу братэрства.

Všyscy ludźe rodzǫ śę volni i ruvni pod vzględem svej godności i svych prav. Sǫ oni obdaženi rozumem i suměněm i povinni postępovać vobec innych v duchu braterstva.
I'm not entirely happy with it, but it seems workable.

User avatar
Milya0
Posts: 550
Joined: 2009-10-19, 16:17
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby Milya0 » 2010-06-05, 18:19

This is just following the current orthography. In Cyrillic, it makes more sense to use the letters that already exist for these sounds. What you have there are palatalized alveolars, not postalveolars.

Yes. Alveolo-palatals are morphologically palatalized alveolars.
And your proposition may suggest that "ś ć ź dź" are pronounced as postalveolar "sz cz ż dż". It's wrong.
Polish "ɕ ʨ ʑ ʥ" are closer to "ç c ʝ ɟ" than to "ʃ ʧ ʒ ʤ" because they are different phonemes.
Qroo₃₁ kaa₄ cro₂ kraa₃ kaa₄ qo₄₁ cra₄₁ ka₄ qoo₄₂ krá₄₂.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-05, 18:29

Yes. Alveolo-palatals are morphologically palatalized alveolars.
My orthography is primarily phonetic. The Polish alveolo-palatal derive from palatalized alveolars, but they are not pronounced as such, and writing them that way in Cyrillic suggests sounds that they don't have.
And your proposition may suggest that "ś ć ź dź" are pronounced as postalveolar "sz cz ż dż". It's wrong.
Polish "ɕ ʨ ʑ ʥ" are closer to "ç c ʝ ɟ" than to "ʃ ʧ ʒ ʤ" because they are different phonemes.
Technically both are postalveolar. One set is palatalized (alveolo-palatal) and the other isn't (laminal retroflex). Neither is exactly the same as the English postalveolars, which are in between.

User avatar
Milya0
Posts: 550
Joined: 2009-10-19, 16:17
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby Milya0 » 2010-06-06, 11:19

writing them that way in Cyrillic suggests sounds that they don't have.

Your ortography suggests, too. [ɕ] isn't [ʃʲ], it's [s͡ç].
Qroo₃₁ kaa₄ cro₂ kraa₃ kaa₄ qo₄₁ cra₄₁ ka₄ qoo₄₂ krá₄₂.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-06, 16:24

Your ortography suggests, too. [ɕ] isn't [ʃʲ], it's [s͡ç].
No, that's wrong. [ɕ] is [ʃ] with more palatalization. So [ʃʲ] is correct, if unorthodox. [s͡ç] isn't quite right because it's not an alveolar sound.

The reason I use <ж дж ч ш> (and <щ> for szcz/ść) is because these sounds represent retroflexes in Russian and other languages, which are postalveolars without palatalization; and alveolo-palatals are postalveolars with full palatalization. Historically they derive from alveolars in Polish, but writing them that way in Cyrillic (зь дзь сь ць) suggests the sounds [zʲ dzʲ sʲ tsʲ], which don't exist in Polish, to speakers of other Slavic languages.

User avatar
Qrczak
Posts: 154
Joined: 2007-11-27, 20:51
Real Name: Marcin Kowalczyk
Gender: male
Location: Kraków
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby Qrczak » 2010-06-06, 18:26

I disagree with <шь жь чь джь> because they suggest a common origin to <ш ж ч дж> which is false. In all other cases in various cyrillic spellings a variant with <ь> added does correspond to a common origin (not necessarily the converse of course).

(Except for Belarussian <ць дзь>. I don't like this either.)

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-06, 20:15

Why should we prioritize etymological spellings over phonetic spellings? That's the reason Polish is unpronounceable to the layman.

User avatar
Qrczak
Posts: 154
Joined: 2007-11-27, 20:51
Real Name: Marcin Kowalczyk
Gender: male
Location: Kraków
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby Qrczak » 2010-06-07, 7:30

I don't mean to prioritize them, I meant to care that they don't conflict. It is OK for me to spell historic palatalization with completely different letters if they diverged phonetically, but not the other way around, pretending that a palatalization relation exists where it does not.

In my metasystem of Polish spelling there are:
1. palatalizations I recognize as regular palatalizations (P, B, F, W, M, N);
2. historically soft consonants that I don't pair with hard consonants (Ć, DŹ, Ś, Ź, C, DZ, SZ, Ż, CZ, DŻ, RZ, L, J);
3. consonants which can be softened phonetically mostly in loanwords (T, D, S, Z, C, (DZ), CH, SZ, H, Ż, CZ, DŻ, R, (RZ), (Ł)) — this is treated like case 1 but the origin is different.
4. K, G, L are treated differently depending on the following vowel (sometimes they are inherently soft, and sometimes they are like in case 3).

A Cyrillic spelling may use ь or iotified vowels for cases 1 and 3, but not for 2, because this would conflict with 3 and because it's not clear what is the hard counterpart.

User avatar
Milya0
Posts: 550
Joined: 2009-10-19, 16:17
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby Milya0 » 2010-06-07, 15:23

Talib wrote:Why should we prioritize etymological spellings over phonetic spellings? That's the reason Polish is unpronounceable to the layman.

English, Welsh and French are unpronounceable to the layman, too. And ortography should provide for morphology.
мама маме, тата тате, школа школе, маса масе
мама маме, тата таче, шкоўа школэ, маса маше
mama mamie, tata tacie, szkoła szkole, masa masie

[s͡ç] isn't quite right because it's not an alveolar sound.

[s͡ç] is alveolar. [ɕ] is alveolar, too. (These are the same sound - alveolo-palatal. Native Pole says that to you!) English Wikipedia is wrong on that point.
According to me, [ʃ] and [ʃʲ] are more back than [ɕ].
Qroo₃₁ kaa₄ cro₂ kraa₃ kaa₄ qo₄₁ cra₄₁ ka₄ qoo₄₂ krá₄₂.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-07, 15:47

English, Welsh and French are unpronounceable to the layman, too.
Yeah, and with the exception of Welsh, extremely irregular and complicated. I'm trying to streamline Polish orthography here, not make it unnecessarily complex.
And ortography should provide for morphology.
мама маме, тата тате, школа школе, маса масе
мама маме, тата таче, шкоўа школэ, маса маше
mama mamie, tata tacie, szkoła szkole, masa masie
This is a valid point, but I don't see how memorizing the arbitrary rules for how these alternations are pronounced is any less difficult than learning how to spell them how they sound.
[s͡ç] is alveolar. [ɕ] is alveolar, too. (These are the same sound - alveolo-palatal.
No, that's not the same thing - and [s͡ç] is a sequence of two sounds.
According to me, [ʃ] and [ʃʲ] are more back than [ɕ].
They're all postalveolar. Alveolo-palatals approach the alveolar ridge, but don't quite contact it. They aren't the same place of articulation as [n] or [l].
According to me, [ʃ] and [ʃʲ] are more back than [ɕ]
Try to palatalize [ʃ] and not have it come out exactly like [ɕ]. Unless you're pronouncing them like the Polish retroflexes (which I suspect you might be) they are equivalent.

User avatar
pittmirg
Posts: 720
Joined: 2008-06-11, 7:37
Gender: male
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby pittmirg » 2010-06-08, 7:58

матка : матке, вѣра : вѣре, одъдъхнѫть : одъдъ̅хать
занесіть мя в Верховину / де родився, хай загину

User avatar
silmeth
Posts: 155
Joined: 2010-04-26, 17:35
Real Name: Benedykt Jaworski
Gender: male
Location: Swidwin/Mysliborz/Szczecin/Poznan
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby silmeth » 2010-06-08, 22:33

Try to palatalize [ʃ] and not have it come out exactly like [ɕ]. Unless you're pronouncing them like the Polish retroflexes (which I suspect you might be) they are equivalent.

Anyway, Polish "sz" isn't [ʃ], so still using "ш" for "sz" and "шь" for "ś" makes no sense. Find another letter for "sz". ;-)
polszczyzna jest moją mową ojczystą (pl)foghlaimeoir na Gaelainne Mumhan ’s ea mé (ga)mám, myslím, dobrou znalost češtiny, rozumím a něco mluvím (cs)

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-08, 22:54

Anyway, Polish "sz" isn't [ʃ], so still using "ш" for "sz" and "шь" for "ś" makes no sense. Find another letter for "sz". ;-)
Nonsense - /ʂ/ and /ʐ/ are spelled <ш> and <ж> in Russian. Seriously, what other letter would you use? It's like you're trying to make things harder on yourself.

User avatar
silmeth
Posts: 155
Joined: 2010-04-26, 17:35
Real Name: Benedykt Jaworski
Gender: male
Location: Swidwin/Mysliborz/Szczecin/Poznan
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby silmeth » 2010-06-08, 23:12

Polish "ś" isn't pronounced [ʂʲ] nor it is etymologically old "sz", so writing it as "шь" is misleading.

Polish "ś" isn't pronounced [sʲ] neither, but it etymologically comes from "s", so writing it as "сь" makes more sense and isn't as misleading.

If you want to make perfect phonetic (and not phonological nor etymological) orthography, then... write IPA (ok, improve IPA, it isn't perfect too). You won't succeed with Cyrillic because there is not enough symbols in for cases like "s - ś - sz".
polszczyzna jest moją mową ojczystą (pl)foghlaimeoir na Gaelainne Mumhan ’s ea mé (ga)mám, myslím, dobrou znalost češtiny, rozumím a něco mluvím (cs)

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-08, 23:47

Polish "ś" isn't pronounced [ʂʲ] nor it is etymologically old "sz", so writing it as "шь" is misleading.

Polish "ś" isn't pronounced [sʲ] neither, but it etymologically comes from "s", so writing it as "сь" makes more sense and isn't as misleading.
Yes, it makes sense from an etymological point of view. My orthography is not etymological like the Latin alphabet for Polish is. It's phonemic, and a fully palatalized [ʂ] would be [ɕ]. Understanding that etymology is not a concern here is the key point.
If you want to make perfect phonetic (and not phonological nor etymological) orthography, then write IPA (ok, improve IPA, it isn't perfect too). You won't succeed with Cyrillic because there is not enough symbols in for cases like "s - ś - sz".
Actually, the only Polish sounds that can't be represented with the standard Cyrillic alphabet (as used for Russian) are the nasal vowels - and there are letters for those in Church Slavonic. It's easier to make a phonemic Cyrillic orthography for Polish than it is to make a Latin one. I've done both, but the latter required a lot of diacritics.

User avatar
silmeth
Posts: 155
Joined: 2010-04-26, 17:35
Real Name: Benedykt Jaworski
Gender: male
Location: Swidwin/Mysliborz/Szczecin/Poznan
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby silmeth » 2010-06-09, 0:15

My orthography is not etymological like the Latin alphabet for Polish is. It's phonemic, and a fully palatalized [ʂ] would be [ɕ].

Maybe it is phonetic, but it isn't phonemic. Polish "ś" is phoneme, and in your orthography it looks like allophone of "sz". Polish official orthography in this case is more phonemic. Also, no Pole would understand "ś" as "a soft sz", even if you understood it this way from phonetic point of view (and, again, even from phonetic point of view it is not).

Anyway, with a little simplification, one can say your proposition is more or less phonetic (with these ш and palatalized шь), but I cannot agree with the statement that it is phonemic.

Next trouble: what about new loans like "szisza"? It is pronounced as ['ʂiʂa] or [ʂʲiʂa] (and it is not [ɕiʂa]). In your orthography there is no way to write it (actually official Polish orthography has similar problem with some much older words like "marznąć").
polszczyzna jest moją mową ojczystą (pl)foghlaimeoir na Gaelainne Mumhan ’s ea mé (ga)mám, myslím, dobrou znalost češtiny, rozumím a něco mluvím (cs)

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10299
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-06-09, 0:55

Maybe it is phonetic, but it isn't phonemic. Polish "ś" is phoneme, and in your orthography it looks like allophone of "sz".
Are palatalized consonants allophones in Polish? No, they are not.
Also, no Pole would understand "ś" as "a soft sz", even if you understood it this way from phonetic point of view (and, again, even from phonetic point of view it is not).
That's because Poles are used to their idiosyncratic use of the Latin script. [ɕ] is not [sʲ], and neither is it [ʂʲ] (whatever that means) but phonetically it's closer to [ʂ]. That's because [ʂ] is a postalveolar sound (laminal retroflex); so is [ɕ], but it's palatalized. [s] doesn't even have the same place of articulation.
Next trouble: what about new loans like "szisza"? It is pronounced as ['ʂiʂa] or [ʂʲiʂa] (and it is not [ɕiʂa]). In your orthography there is no way to write it (actually official Polish orthography has similar problem with some much older words like "marznąć").
Шъиша. This is what the hard sign is used for.

Also, is that марзнѫчь or мажнѫчь? Because neither is a problem in my orthography.

User avatar
silmeth
Posts: 155
Joined: 2010-04-26, 17:35
Real Name: Benedykt Jaworski
Gender: male
Location: Swidwin/Mysliborz/Szczecin/Poznan
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Пољска цириљіца / Polska cyrylica

Postby silmeth » 2010-06-09, 11:35

That's because Poles are used to their idiosyncratic use of the Latin script. [ɕ] is not [sʲ], and neither is it [ʂʲ] (whatever that means) but phonetically it's closer to [ʂ]. That's because [ʂ] is a postalveolar sound (laminal retroflex); so is [ɕ], but it's palatalized. [s] doesn't even have the same place of articulation.

Polish [ʂ] also doesn't have the same place of articulation as [ɕ]. And Poles connect "s" with "ś" not because of orthography but because of alternations in declension (like masa - masie), so they do with "t" and "ć" (tata - tacie, prezydent - prezydencie), and in this case there's no orthographic reason.
polszczyzna jest moją mową ojczystą (pl)foghlaimeoir na Gaelainne Mumhan ’s ea mé (ga)mám, myslím, dobrou znalost češtiny, rozumím a něco mluvím (cs)


Return to “Polish (Polski)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest