# Щ pronunciation



## Finner

Hello everybody,
Раз по-болгарский Щ произносится ШТ,я не уверен как точно по-русский произносится.Знает ли некто?

Извините меня,но не могу искать в форуме тему об этом.


----------



## morzh

It is very close to the American "sh" before "i"sound. Like in "sheep".

Actually, the sound "ш" is such that if tried to be pronounced before actual "и" sound it will automatically form "щ". This is exactly why there is that "жы-шы" rule in Russian - "Ш" In order to sound like "ш" has to be followed by "ы", not "и" - if the latter is forced it will make "щ" out of it.

So say "ш" sound but force "и" (don't succumb to that "ы") after it; the result will be what is pretty damn close to "щ". And when you get that part, and feel how your tongue works against the upper jaw and how the air moves - over-exaggerate it a bit, and then you will have a real "щ".


----------



## Maroseika

in the literary pronunciation *щ = ш'ш' *(long soft ш). Technically, щ is more rear than ш , i.e. щ sound is produced by the rear back of the tongue, while ш - with its middle part.
However much more useful would be to hear it once.


----------



## Finner

Большое спасибо всем!


----------



## morzh

BTW, it is not "слово" - it is "буква".


----------



## Ben Jamin

morzh said:


> It is very close to the American "sh" before "i"sound. Like in "sheep".
> 
> Actually, the sound "ш" is such that if tried to be pronounced before actual "и" sound it will automatically form "щ". This is exactly why there is that "жы-шы" rule in Russian - "Ш" In order to sound like "ш" has to be followed by "ы", not "и" - if the latter is forced it will make "щ" out of it.
> 
> So say "ш" sound but force "и" (don't succumb to that "ы") after it; the result will be what is pretty damn close to "щ". And when you get that part, and feel how your tongue works against the upper jaw and how the air moves - over-exaggerate it a bit, and then you will have a real "щ".


 
But historically the letter denoted sh+ch?  It is still transliterated this way to other alphabets/languages.


----------



## morzh

Ben Jamin said:


> But historically the letter denoted sh+ch?  It is still transliterated this way to other alphabets/languages.



I think, "Ш+T" (sh+t). И называлась она "Шта" поэтому.


----------



## Finner

morzh said:


> BTW, it is not "слово" - it is "буква".



Oops.Speaking serbian and russian can lead to such misunderstandings!
I stand corrected.

Слово is in serbian and буква in russian.


----------



## Maroseika

Ben Jamin said:


> But historically the letter denoted sh+ch?



There are various versions in this regard: щ < шт or шч or тш. The first one is the most popular. It is pronounced as шч in Ukrainian and Belorussian.


----------



## bibax

In school we learned to pronounce *шч* (btw like in Old Czech: ščuka/шчука, ščít/шчит, now štika, štít pronounced шти-).

However it didn't matter at all as we never met Russian people. Artěk was not for everyone and the Russian tourists were very rare in Prague in those times.

Also we always transliterate it šč, e.g. Saltykov-Ščedrin, Mytiščinský ...


----------



## morzh

bibax said:


> In school we learned to pronounce *шч* (btw like in Old Czech: ščuka/шчука, ščít/шчит, now štika, štít pronounced шти-).
> 
> However it didn't matter at all as we never met Russian people. Artěk was not for everyone and the Russian tourists were very rare in Prague in those times.
> 
> Also we always transliterate it šč, e.g. Saltykov-Ščedrin, Mytiščinský ...



Well, it is somewhat of the "шч". But not pronounced separately - it is actually the sound in between "ш" and "ч".

Interestingly enough, you will find people in Russia, who will pronounce it exactly that - "ш" and then "ч".

I even remember a singer who always would pronounce "счастье" as "шчастье", not as  "щастье" ("сч" in Russian is pronounced as "щ").

*<no Youtube links please>*


----------



## Rosett

По-русски щ -это долгое ш, произносимое с усилием.


----------



## Maroseika

rosett said:


> По-русски щ -это долгое ш, произносимое с усилием.


Если под усилием вы подразумеваете мягкость, то это соответствует общепринятому взгляду.


----------



## englishman

morzh said:


> It is very close to the American "sh" before "i"sound. Like in "sheep".



This is slightly confusing. The combination of "sh" and "i" sounds nothing like the combination of "sh" and "ee" that occurs in "sheep".

Am I right in saying that "щ" is simply a palatalised "ш" ?


----------



## Maroseika

englishman said:


> Am I right in saying that "щ" is simply a palatalised "ш" ?



Yes, it is a palatalized (or soft) ш, but in addition it is a long ш, i.e. [ш'ш'].
Difference between hard and soft ш, and between short and long ш is very evident when comparing шип, сшиб and щип:

шип - hard short ш and pronounced as [шып]
сшиб - long hard ш and pronounced as [шшып] (there is also a variant of promunciation as [сшып])
щип - soft long ш and pronounced as [ш'ш'ип]


----------



## englishman

Maroseika said:


> Yes, it is a palatilesed (or soft) ш, but in addition it is a long ш, i.e. [ш'ш'].



By "long", you mean longer than ш ? Does [ш'ш'] suggest that it's twice as long ?


----------



## Maroseika

englishman said:


> By "long", you mean longer than ш ? Does [ш'ш'] suggest that it's twice as long ?


It is definately longer than ш. As for the exact length, I'm not sure. Maybe twice as long, maybe 1.5. Better to listen it live.


----------



## morzh

englishman said:


> This is slightly confusing. The combination of "sh" and "i" sounds nothing like the combination of "sh" and "ee" that occurs in "sheep".
> 
> Am I right in saying that "щ" is simply a palatalised "ш" ?



Notice I said "American". British is a bit different, but still close.


----------



## englishman

morzh said:


> Notice I said "American". British is a bit different, but still close.



I was referring to the fact that you seem to be suggesting that the sound of "i" is equivalent to the sound of "ee", which is not the case.

I agree that the "sh" in "sheep" is quite close to the sound of "щ".


----------



## morzh

No. I was not suggesting that. Actually, in one of the earlier threads I was trying to explain to someone the difference (the American, of course). The sound "ee" makes is closer to our "и" whereas short "i" makes sound not quite unlike our "ы", that is halfway in between the two.

The way "sh" sounds in "shit", when an American says it with enough expression, is to me almost exactly what "щ" is.

Also, in the post of mine you refer to, I did not mean the letter "i" - I meant the phonetic sound "i", which serves for both short "i" or "ee" (the symbol used is still the same, whether with colon after it or not.) At least in one of the phonetic writing systems.


----------



## Memphis9489

I always thought the easiest explanation for pronouncing Щ is simply combining the "sh" sound (as in "*sh*eep") and the "ch" sound (as in "*ch*ip").

Therefore, Щ = "shch"

i.e. борщ = "borshch"


----------



## Maroseika

Memphis9489 said:


> I always thought the easiest explanation for pronouncing Щ is simply combining the "sh" sound (as in "*sh*eep") and the "ch" sound (as in "*ch*ip").
> 
> Therefore, Щ = "shch"
> 
> i.e. борщ = "borshch"



This interpretation is just a graphic one and, as explained before, describes accurately only one of the Slavic phonetic variants of this letter existed in the far past, but not the one in literary Russian. 
The most important is that this is not a combination of the sounds, but one sound.


----------



## Saluton

Well, in fact, the sound is not just a long soft Ш - it is between Ш and Ч. I agree with morzh.


----------



## Maroseika

Saluton said:


> Well, in fact, the sound is not just a long soft Ш - it is between Ш and Ч. I agree with morzh.



I wonder what can mean "between ш and ч"? Do you mean that tongue postion is intermediate, or the place where the sound is produced is between those for ш and ч? 
Actually, there are two main approaches in Russian phonetics to the nature of щ, interpreting it as [š’:] or [š’č] (< [š’č]). Adherents of the [š’č] nature proceed from the fact that this phoneme is often situated at the interface of different morphems (и*сч*езать) - like such double phonems as in о*тс*порить.
Their opponents claim however that the natives do not perceive this interface in the great number of words (счет, счастье) and in many other words there is no interface at all (щедрый, щи, тащи).
The first theory reflects the so called Leningrad (Petersburg) pronunciation standard. It differs from the so-called old-Moscow variant, because, first, it was influenced by the bookish (spelling) pronunciation and, second, by the Northern patois.
The old-Moscow variant (long soft ш as one phoneme) is on waht up-to-date Russian standard is basing .


----------

