Yes, that's true but since Polish /l/ doesn't have a hard counterpart anymore,
ɕ ś ш(ь) ś
tɕ ć ч(ь) ć
ʑ ź ж(ь) ź
dʑ dź дж(ь) dź
ɕ ś с(ь) ś
tɕ ć т(ь) ć
ʑ ź з(ь) ź
dʑ dź д(ь) dź
Grammatically. Phonetically, they're entirely different sounds now."Ł" is hard counterpart, as in "szkoła - szkole".
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.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
I'm not entirely happy with it, but it seems workable.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.
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.
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.Yes. Alveolo-palatals are morphologically palatalized alveolars.
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.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.
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.Your ortography suggests, too. [ɕ] isn't [ʃʲ], it's [s͡ç].
Talib wrote:Why should we prioritize etymological spellings over phonetic spellings? That's the reason Polish is unpronounceable to the layman.
[s͡ç] isn't quite right because it's not an alveolar sound.
Yeah, and with the exception of Welsh, extremely irregular and complicated. I'm trying to streamline Polish orthography here, not make it unnecessarily complex.English, Welsh and French are unpronounceable to the layman, too.
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.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
No, that's not the same thing - and [s͡ç] is a sequence of two sounds.[s͡ç] is alveolar. [ɕ] is alveolar, too. (These are the same sound - alveolo-palatal.
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.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.
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.Anyway, Polish "sz" isn't [ʃ], so still using "ш" for "sz" and "шь" for "ś" makes no sense. Find another letter for "sz".
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.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.
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.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".
My orthography is not etymological like the Latin alphabet for Polish is. It's phonemic, and a fully palatalized [ʂ] would be [ɕ].
Are palatalized consonants allophones in Polish? No, they are not.Maybe it is phonetic, but it isn't phonemic. Polish "ś" is phoneme, and in your orthography it looks like allophone of "sz".
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.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).
Шъиша. This is what the hard sign is used for.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").
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests