# How to correctly pronounce letter Щ



## polyglot-wannabe

Всем привет!

 I've been learning Russian for a month now, but I couldn't find the answer to these questions, as the information I've found varies from source to source.

1. How to pronounce letter Щ? I've seen it transliterated either as ШТ (sht) or ШЧ (shch). In the little russian audio I've listened to, I can't tell the difference between Ш and Щ. It sounds like a prolonged Ш (shh) to me.

2. How to pronounce letter Э? This is confusing especially when transliterating foreign names and words into Cyrillic. Sometimes Э sounds like the first a in "*a*nother", sometimes just like in Russian. For example, would it be right to transliterate the english word "another" as "ЭНАДЭР"?

Большое спасибо!


----------



## Maroseika

Щ is really usually interpreted as long soft ш. 
These previous discussions may be interesting for you:

ш-щ
Щ pronunciation
Женщина (pronunciation)


As for the question about э, please open the new thread.


----------



## Awwal12

polyglot-wannabe said:


> In the little russian audio I've listened to, I can't tell the difference between Ш and Щ.


Ah, a typical problem for many foreigners. Not many languages in the world phonemically oppose these two consonants. Still, there IS a difference. Usually Щ is somewhat prolonged, as you have succesfully noted, but the key difference is still their articulation and sounding. /Ш/ is a *hard* consonant, somewhere between post-alveolar [ʃ] and retroflex [ʂ]. When you pronounce it, the tip of the tongue is raised to the hard palate just behind the alveolae. /Щ/ is a *soft* consonant, alveolopalatal [ɕ]. When you pronounce it, the tip of your tongue is lying somewhere close to the lower teeth, while the very articulation is made by the frontal upper surface of your tongue, which is binding and leaning to the alveolae (see below).
View attachment 14277 
Also I here is a short audio [link removed]



polyglot-wannabe said:


> 2. How to pronounce letter Э?


Depending on where it happens; pronunciation of Russian vowels greatly depend on the relative stress position. In stressed position, the *closest analogue* is German ä or maybe English e in "bed". When it's the first letter in the word (not after some consonant) and also is stressed, it shifts somewhat backwards, more resembling that first schwa in "another". In unstressed positions it's quite rare; then it's usually just schwa, or in the beginning of words it can be a reduced [ɪ] instead.


----------



## polyglot-wannabe

Thanks a lot, that audio was really helpful !


----------



## Ben Jamin

The letter Щ must have been once pronounced sh+ch (šč) in Russian, as it is still done in Ukrainian. The letter is also transliterated to most languages as šč (or sh-ch, sch-tsch, sz-cz, and so on). This is apparently the reason that many foreigners pronounce the letter this way.


----------



## Drink

Ben Jamin said:


> The letter Щ must have been once pronounced sh+ch (šč) in Russian, as it is still done in Ukrainian. The letter is also transliterated to most languages as šč (or sh-ch, sch-tsch, sz-cz, and so on). This is apparently the reason that many foreigners pronounce the letter this way.



It was, and still is by very few people.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Drink said:


> It was, and still is by very few people.


According to Википедия this was the pronunciation of the upper classes still in the XIX century. Who pronounces  Щ as šč today in Russia?


----------



## ahvalj

Ben Jamin said:


> According to Википедия this was the pronunciation of the upper classes still in the XIX century. Who pronounces Щ as šč today in Russia?


I have never heard it myself, only in old records — of Gypsy romances (from the early 20th century) and of several singers of the 30–50's. Not sure about the actors in old movies. By the way, there were (are?) dialects where this _шьшь_ has dispalatalized and produced a plain long _ш_.

Update. I suspect, the end result of this process will be an opposition of hard/soft _ш_ and _ж_ as elsewhere in the Russian consonantism, so _шьшь_ and _жьжь_ will become short _шь_ and _жь (прошу — прошю, тоже — пож'е)_.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> Update. I suspect, the end result of this process will be an opposition of hard/soft _ш_ and _ж_ as elsewhere in the Russian consonantism, so _шьшь_ and _жьжь_ will become short _шь_ and _жь (прошу — прошю, тоже — пож'е)_.



There is nothing to suspect, since this has already happened. However, I doubt that this will affect the orthography anytime soon, seeing as Russian orthography has avoided the complete overhauls that Serbian went through.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> There is nothing to suspect, since this has already happened. However, I doubt that this will affect the orthography anytime soon, seeing as Russian orthography has avoided the complete overhauls that Serbian went through.


Well, not sure about New England, but in Russia _щ_ and _жж_ are still long sounds, at least when not after or before consonants. Still a step before the abovementioned end result.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> Well, not sure about New England, but in Russia _щ_ and _жж_ are still long sounds, at least when not after or before consonants. Still a step before the abovementioned end result.



Not for everyone.


----------



## ahvalj

A modern author characterizes this _шч_ the following way: 
_«В этот момент Филино окно распахнулось, и механический голос пропел, *ненатурально выговаривая слова*: «Ты па-азабыл – и нэт тэбе про*шч*энья», и потом что-то про расставание»._
http://www.e-reading.me/chapter.php/1257/13/Akunin_1_Detskaya_kniga.html
_
«Ты па-азабыл – и нэт тэбе про*шч*энья – __Не*шч*астный дэнь, когда рассталис мы…»_
http://www.e-reading.me/chapter.php/1257/16/Akunin_1_Detskaya_kniga.html


----------



## Ben Jamin

ahvalj said:


> A modern author characterizes this _шч_ the following way:
> _«В этот момент Филино окно распахнулось, и механический голос пропел, *ненатурально выговаривая слова*: «Ты па-азабыл – и нэт тэбе про*шч*энья», и потом что-то про расставание»._
> http://www.e-reading.me/chapter.php/1257/13/Akunin_1_Detskaya_kniga.html
> _
> «Ты па-азабыл – и нэт тэбе про*шч*энья – __Не*шч*астный дэнь, когда рассталис мы…»_
> http://www.e-reading.me/chapter.php/1257/16/Akunin_1_Detskaya_kniga.html


Isn't this a parody of Ukrainian pronunciation?


----------



## ahvalj

Ben Jamin said:


> Isn't this a parody of Ukrainian pronunciation?


No, it is a rather adequate description of the way the ancient Gypsy romances were sung. I wanted to emphasize by those citations that this _шч_ is perceived as odd by modern speakers, even by those with philological background as Akunin.


----------



## Awwal12

ahvalj said:


> Well, not sure about New England, but in Russia _щ_ and _жж_ are still long sounds, at least when not after or before consonants.


More importantly, the length of /щ/ is not phonemic anyway, so being it  longer or shorter doesn't make much difference, and such change hardly  will be even percieved.
As for /ж' )/, I must remind that in speech of huge number of speakers it just doesn't exist (being pronounced identically to /ж )/), myself included.


----------



## ahvalj

Awwal12 said:


> As for /ж' )/, I must remind that in speech of huge number of speakers it just doesn't exist (being pronounced identically to /ж )/), myself included.


Yet it is pretty stable here, e. g. in _приезжать, позже_. The school and media can bring it back in a decade. By the way, if the Cyrillic alphabet had a special letter for _жд_ as it had one for _шт_, the East Slavs would have pronounced it as _жджь_, and we now would have had _жжь_ in the place of all those ugly Church Slavonic _жд'_s like we have _шшь_ in the place of its voiceless counterpart.


----------



## Solle

Can't we say that the Russian sound [щ] is close to a German sound in such words as 'iCH', 'niCHt', 'LeipziG'?


----------



## ahvalj

Solle said:


> Can't we say that the Russian sound [щ] is close to a German sound in such words as 'iCH', 'niCHt', 'LeipziG'?


To me, the German sound is too emphatic. The Russian _щ_ is a plain palatalized _sh_, close to the Italian _sci_.

By the way, I realize that virtually nobody has heard the Lithuanian language, but it is still worth mentioning that the modern Russian _ш_ and _щ_ are absolutely identical in quality to the hard and soft Lithuanian _š_'s — that's the closest analogy among languages of Europe.


----------



## Saluton

Solle said:


> Can't we say that the Russian sound [щ] is close to a German sound in such words as 'iCH', 'niCHt', 'LeipziG'?


Yes, it is close.


----------



## Ben Jamin

ahvalj said:


> To me, the German sound is too emphatic. The Russian _щ_ is a plain palatalized _sh_, close to the Italian _sci_.
> 
> By the way, I realize that virtually nobody has heard the Lithuanian language, but it is still worth mentioning that the modern Russian _ш_ and _щ_ are absolutely identical in quality to the hard and soft Lithuanian _š_'s — that's the closest analogy among languages of Europe.


The English *sh *- sound is also often partially palatalized, especially before *i* and *e*.


----------



## Drink

Solle said:


> Can't we say that the Russian sound [щ] is close to a German sound in such words as 'iCH', 'niCHt', 'LeipziG'?



No, it is actually closer to 'sch'.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> Yet it is pretty stable here, e. g. in _приезжать, позже_. The school and media can bring it back in a decade. By the way, if the Cyrillic alphabet had a special letter for _жд_ as it had one for _шт_, the East Slavs would have pronounced it as _жджь_, and we now would have had _жжь_ in the place of all those ugly Church Slavonic _жд'_s like we have _шшь_ in the place of its voiceless counterpart.



But people like Awwal12 and me would pronounce it like _ж_. Anyway, most _щ_'s should actually be _ч_, and most _жд_'s should actually be plain _ж_.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> But people like Awwal12 and me would pronounce it like _ж_.


This hard pronunciation has become possible for two reasons: (1) the absence of a separate letter, which would explicitly denote a palatalized sound and (2) the small number of words with _зж_ and _жж_, so that this merger doesn't introduce a serious tension into the vocabulary. The parallel pronunciation _тышша_, _прышшык_ etc. has remained dialectal for _щ_ being in a contrary position.



Drink said:


> Anyway, most _щ_'s should actually be _ч_, and most _жд_'s should actually be plain _ж_.


Had the literary language been created anew on the basis of the local speech some 1000 years ago. Since this didn't happen, we have what we have. 

Actually, my idea about _жд/жжь_ is the following:
(1) the Old Church Slavonic had _щ _(pronounced as _шт_) from three main sources — _ст/щ (простити — прощение), ск/щ (искати — ищемъ) _and _т/щ (просвѣтити — просвѣщение),_ in the Old East Slavic this corresponded to _ст_/_шч_, _ск/шч_ and _т/ч_, so when people saw the letter _щ_ in the first two sets of words they substituted the Bulgarian _шт_ with their own _шч_ (probably without even knowing that the east Balkanic pronunciation was different) and extended this _шч_ into all cases when the Old Church Slavonic had the letter _щ_, hence our _просвещение_ with _шч>шшь;
_
(2) the Cyrillic alphabet had no corresponding ligature for _жд_, so the Bulgarian pronunciation was expressed explicitly, and the east Slavs did not associate the east Balkanic _жд_ with their own _жджь_ (_ѣздити/ѣзжу_ and _брызгати/брызжу_) and thus were unable to extend this pronunciation to the cases when the Old Church Slavonic _д_ alternated with _жд_ (_родити/раждати_). Had somebody introduced a separate letter 1000 years ago, the development would have been parallel to _щ_ and the voiced _жжь_ would have been a pretty widespread and stable sound in the modern Russian _(*преҗе, *роҗение, *жаҗа, *надеҗа, *еҗу, *виҗу, *поҗе)._


----------



## Ben Jamin

To the post #23:
it seems very unusual that orthography should influence pronunciation of vernacular words, as one should expect that the majority of common people were illiterate until let's say, mid XIX century in most countries. I have never heard about such phenomenon before.


----------



## Drink

Ben Jamin said:


> To the post #23:
> it seems very unusual that orthography should influence pronunciation of vernacular words, as one should expect that the majority of common people were illiterate until let's say, mid XIX century in most countries. I have never heard about such phenomenon before.



The effect ahvalj is referring to occurred in what were originally very literary and/or religious words that later spread into the colloquial language. Most everyday words were unaffected by this either at first or at all. Compare the dialectal pronunciation of _дождь_ as _дожжь_, and twins such as _горячий_ vs _горящий_, _рожать_ vs _рождать_, etc.


----------



## ahvalj

Ben Jamin said:


> To the post #23:
> it seems very unusual that orthography should influence pronunciation of vernacular words, as one should expect that the majority of common people were illiterate until let's say, mid XIX century in most countries. I have never heard about such phenomenon before.


What I meant is that the Russian _щ_ and _зж_ are rare in inherited words and this has led to the dispalatalization of _жджь>жжь>жж_ in the language of many speakers (though not normally so in St. Petersburg) and, as we have learnt, to the full merger of both _ж_ and _зж_ in New England ,-) The same could have happened to _щ_ if not the Church Slavonic words that immensely increase the frequence of this sound (I'd estimate that at least 95% of _щ_ occur in words of CS origin). I honestly don't see how it is related to literacy. For example, in English the vast majority of _dž_'s occur in Romance and other borrowed words, as the only source of this sound in Anglo-Saxon words was the rare _gg_ (_wedge, bridge_).

Update. This dispalatalization of _жжь_ is a recent or even ongoing phenomenon in most areas, so people conveying this shift are literate in several generations. By the way, I'd emphasize that it is far from universal and I personally regard it as plebeian and always notice with dislike.


----------



## ahvalj

Since we have started to discuss the voiced correspondence of _щ_, there is one more moment to consider. Some speakers (and in the past this was much more widespread) pronounce _жд_ before _е_ and _и_ (i. e. in both positions where this cluster becomes palatalized) as something varying between _жджь_ and _жжь_: _предупреждж'ение_, _подожж'и_ etc. I didn't mentioned it yesterday because (1) I have no idea where it comes from: this has no etymological reasons and (2) I thought it was extinct, but an hour ago I have heard _подожж'и_ in a phone conversation of a 20+ years old girl.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> Since we have started to discuss the voiced correspondence of _щ_, there is one more moment to consider. Some speakers (and in the past this was much more widespread) pronounce _жд_ before _е_ and _и_ (i. e. in both positions where this cluster becomes palatalized) as something varying between _жджь_ and _жжь_: _предупреждж'ение_, _подожж'и_ etc. I didn't mentioned it yesterday because (1) I have no idea where it comes from: this has no etymological reasons and (2) I thought it was extinct, but an hour ago I have heard _подожж'и_ in a phone conversation of a 20+ years old girl.



Yes, my grandmother says _подожж'и_ and _дожжь_, but _выежать_ (hard). I don't know what to make of that distinction. I have never heard anything like _предупреждж'ение_.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> Yes, my grandmother says _подожж'и_ and _дожжь_, but _выежать_ (hard). I don't know what to make of that distinction. I have never heard anything like _предупреждж'ение_.


Your grandmother apparently uses the soft consonant before _и_ and the hard one before _a_.

In the pair _дождь/дожжь_ the latter is the regular form (<*_dus-dı̯us_ "bad day"), whereas in _подожди/подожжи_ regular is the first one (Old East Slavic _подъжьди_), cp. _поджидать_ with a vowel between _ж_ and _д_. I can only guess that those non-etymological_ жджь/жжь_'s before front vowels are results of some analogical rearrangement.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> Your grandmother apparently uses the soft consonant before _и_ and the hard one before _a_.
> 
> In the pair _дождь/дожжь_ the latter is the regular form (<*_dus-dı̯us_ "bad day"), whereas in _подожди/подожжи_ regular is the first one (Old East Slavic _подъжьди_), cp. _поджидать_ with a vowel between _ж_ and _д_. I can only guess that those non-etymological_ жджь/жжь_'s before front vowels are results of some analogical rearrangement.



I don't think it has to do with the vowel, because she says _дожж'а_, but _поже_. I think the most likely explanation is that there was a later lenition of _жд'_ > _жж'_, perhaps influenced by words like _дождь_, but not necessarily.


----------

