# ь, ъ - effect on pronunciation



## pedroveg

Hello everybody.
I have just started study Russian and these letters ь, ъ are mutes, but they change the precedent consonant sound. Could anyboy explain me how? 
Thank you very much.


----------



## Maroseika

ь softens the precedent consonant or "iotizes" the next vowel:
мол - моль
колесо - колье

ъ also "iotizes" the vowel after the hard and sometimes even soft consonant:
семя - съем

In the Ancient Russian both fonemas were vowels.


----------



## palomnik

As you know, most consonants in Russian are either "soft" (palatized) or "hard".

If a "soft" consonant is followed by a vowel, the vowel must be _я, е, и, ю _or_ ё._  These vowels have an inherent "yot" or y-sound. 

However, sometimes soft consonants are not followed by a vowel.  In that case, you must put _ь _after the consonant to show that the consonant is soft, like in _портфель, роль_, _пять_, etc.

Sometimes also, a hard consonant is followed by _я, е, и, ю _or_ ё. _This usually happens when a prefix that ends in a hard consonant is followed by a vowel sound.  In this case you must insert _ъ _to show that the consonant stays hard, even though it is followed by a vowel that would normally soften it, as in words like _подъём, объезд, съесть (_as opposed to _сесть)._

Finally, sometimes it happens that a consonant is soft _and _the vowel following it must have an initial -y sound.  In this case you need to insert _ь_ between the consonant and the vowel, and pronounce both the soft vowel and the -y, like in _семья_ (as opposed to _семя)._

It's harder to make it any clearer than that, and I'm oversimplifying a bit as it is, but I hope you get the idea.


----------



## phosphore

And sometimes they are there just for some etymological reason, like in the second person singular in the present tense.


----------



## sokol

I can't of course add anything to the excellent explanation of Palomnik, but I would like to test if my understanding of this is correct (' = palatalisation sign):

- Soft consonant not followed by a vowel:
_пять_- IPA [pjatʲ] - transliterated /pyat'/
That's the easy one: _ь_ is just a palatalisation sign.

- Hard consonant followed by a palatalising vowel:
_съесть _- IPA [sjestʲ] - transliterated /syest'/
That is, _s_ stays hard but _e*) _is pronounced _ye_, while in _сесть _[sʲestʲ] _s'est' _there is no _ye _but soft (palatalised) _s_.

- Soft consonant followed by an _y_ which must be pronounced:
_семья_ - IPA [sʲemʲja] - transliterated /s'em'ya/
So, _m _stays soft*) but nevertheless y (of _я - ya_) has to be pronounced, therefore _ь _needs to be put there.
*) I am not sure how the soft _m _is pronounced in Russian, probably this would be [mnʲ], I wouldn't know.

 This probably is even oversimplifying the simplified version given by Palomnik, but as said, I'd like to check if I understood this correctly.


----------



## Maroseika

palomnik said:


> If a "soft" consonant is followed by a vowel, the vowel must be _я, е, и, ю _or_ ё._ These vowels have an inherent "yot" or y-sound.


This rule seems to be erroneous. Without ь there is neither yot, nor y-sound: лес, лиса, лях, лёсс.




> Sometimes also, a hard consonant is followed by _я, е, и, ю _or_ ё. _This usually happens when a prefix that ends in a hard consonant is followed by a vowel sound. In this case you must insert _ъ _to show that the consonant stays hard, even though it is followed by a vowel that would normally soften it, as in words like _подъём, объезд, съесть (_as opposed to _сесть)._


Strange enough, in many loaned words the consonant remains soft: адъютант, адъективный, конъюгат.


----------



## Kolan

palomnik said:


> Sometimes also, a hard consonant is followed by _я, е, и, ю _or_ ё. _This usually happens when a prefix that ends in a hard consonant is followed by a vowel sound. In this case you must insert _ъ _to show that the consonant stays hard, even though it is followed by a vowel that would normally soften it, as in words like _подъём, объезд, съесть (_as opposed to _сесть)._


This rule only applies in case of prefixes. Some composed words (иняз, партячейка, etc) apparently require *ъ* for a phonetically proper spelling: ин(ъ)яз, парт(ъ)ячейка, but the current rule does not support it. 

It is still not known how to write properly: пост*ъ*ельцинский or постельцинский.


----------



## Kolan

palomnik said:


> However, sometimes soft consonants are not followed by a vowel. In that case, you must put _ь _after the consonant to show that the consonant is soft, like in _портфель, роль_, _пять_, etc.


In some cases *ь* would affect the vowel of the previous syllable: ш*е*сть vs. ш*е*ст (_[шэст]_).


----------



## Ptak

Kolan said:


> In some cases *ь* would affect the vowel of the previous syllable: ш*е*сть vs. ш*е*ст (_[шэст]_).


How on Earth would it affect that vowel? In the words *шест* and *шесть* the both 'е' sound equal (_[шэ-]_), and the only difference in the pronunciation of these words is that in *шесть* the *т* is soft.


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> In some cases *ь* would affect the vowel of the previous syllable: ш*е*сть vs. ш*е*ст (_[шэст]_).


As well as the preprevious consonant:
[шес'т'] -  [шэст]
[жес'т'] -  [жэст]


----------



## Maroseika

Ptak said:


> How on Earth would it affect that vowel? In the words *шест* and *шесть* the both 'е' sound equal (_[шэ-]_)


No, they don't.
To make sure just try to pronounce ше- as if you were going to say шест, but change your mind to say шесть. You will notice it sounds unnatural. In fact they differ in the openness extent.


----------



## Ptak

Maroseika said:


> You will notice it sounds unnatural.


No, I don't...

Maybe they sound different for linguists, maybe there is some extremely slight difference, but I am just a native speaker and they sound exactly in the same way to me.


----------



## Maroseika

However they do differ and I'm sure one should notice the difference in most cases if analizing attentively. Also look § 25-28: http://rusgram.narod.ru/1-32.html


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> In fact they differ in the openness extent.


I learned about that studying English. The phonetic examples ш*е*ст/ш*е*сть were given in the book in order to explain to a Russian student the difference between two English vowels.

The difference in quality of this sound in Russian may be due to the fact, that *ь* in Ancient Russian used to be a reduced vowel, which in certain cases may provide for an "open syllable" effect in the preceding vowel, although this effect is not recognized generally in modern Russian.


----------



## palomnik

Maroseika said:


> This rule seems to be erroneous. Without ь there is neither yot, nor y-sound: лес, лиса, лях, лёсс..


 
I don't think I understand, Maro.  As I learned it, the vowels я е и ё ю palatalize the previous consonant, generally speaking.  If there is no consonant in front of them, then they have an inherent yot.

Maybe that's not an adequate explanation of what's going on.


----------



## palomnik

Ptak said:


> How on Earth would it affect that vowel? In the words *шест* and *шесть* the both 'е' sound equal (_[шэ-]_), and the only difference in the pronunciation of these words is that in *шесть* the *т* is soft.


 
As other foreros have pointed out, it does affect the vowel; I always assumed that the difference was caused by the proximity of the following soft consonants.  

Unfortunately, foreigners learning the language need to spend a large amount of time mimicking sounds in a language laboratory (are there still any of those left?) before they can be sensitive to the difference, and it might be overkill to include it in a simple explanation of the hard/soft phenomenon.


----------



## Maroseika

palomnik said:


> I don't think I understand, Maro. As I learned it, the vowels я е и ё ю palatalize the previous consonant, generally speaking. If there is no consonant in front of them, then they have an inherent yot.


Maybe it's me who doesn't understand. When you say *"If a "soft" consonant is followed by a vowel, the vowel must be я, е, и, ю or ё. These vowels have an inherent "yot" or y-sound*" - do you mean *letters* я, ю, etc? 
Because in лях "я" is just a letter, meaning vowel "а" and marking soft preceding consonant (no yot); unlike маньяк where there is really something like y-sound + "а" after soft consonant.


----------



## Ptak

palomnik said:


> As other foreros have pointed out, it does affect the vowel; I always assumed that the difference was caused by the proximity of the following soft consonants.


I really am amazed if you hear that difference because I am a native and I don't hear it, and many people who know me say my hearing skills are very good.
I would suggest a foreigner not to bother with such trifle, really. At least in the beginning - for sure.


----------



## Kolan

It may be лях and -л*ь*ях (like in ул*ь*ях, стульях). So that there is another difference.

Actually, -*ля*- vs. -*лья-* must be considered separately from other cases. The problem is reflected in my forum name. I couldn't write _Kolyan_, because that overexagerates Russian pronunciation of Колян. The closest to Ко*ля*н, as I can see it through feedback, would be Ko*la*n.


----------



## Maroseika

Ptak said:


> I really am amazed if you hear that difference because I am a native and I don't hear it, and many people who know me say my hearing skills are very good.


 In fact this is one of the main features of what we call "accent". Just listen to the foreigners speaking Russian and you immediately realize the difference.


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> - Soft consonant followed by an _y_ which must be pronounced:
> _семья_ - IPA [sʲemʲja] - transliterated /s'em'ya/
> So, _m _stays soft*) but nevertheless y (of _я - ya_) has to be pronounced, therefore _ь _needs to be put there.
> *) I am not sure how the soft _m _is pronounced in Russian, probably this would be [mnʲ], I wouldn't know.


 
I do not know about IPA, but in Russian phonology "семья" would be transcripted as [с'иэм'ja], but you are more or less right.


----------



## Maroseika

phosphore said:


> i do not know about ipa, but in russian phonology "семья" would be transcripted as [с'иэм'ja]


 иэ?


----------



## phosphore

Kolan said:


> In some cases *ь* would affect the vowel of the previous syllable: ш*е*сть vs. ш*е*ст (_[шэст]_).


 
Actually, the soft sign is still written in order to mark the softness of the preceding consonant, and it is the softness of that consonant which affects the preceding vowel recursion. That is how I am taught.


----------



## phosphore

Maroseika said:


> иэ?


 
That "э" should have been superscripted. I do not know why it has not.


----------



## Maroseika

phosphore said:


> That "э" should have been superscripted. I do not know why it has not.


 Oh, now I see, thanks.


----------



## vox05

Ptak said:


> I really am amazed if you hear that difference because I am a native and I don't hear it, and many people who know me say my hearing skills are very good.
> I would suggest a foreigner not to bother with such trifle, really. At least in the beginning - for sure.



I tried that the other way ( pronounce "шесть" first and then change mind omit "ь"), and it seems that I noticed the difference.


----------



## Ptak

Ptak said:


> In the words *шест* and *шесть* the both 'е' sound equal (_[шэ-]_), and the only difference in the pronunciation of these words is that in *шесть* the *т* is soft.


By the way, I was wrong when I wrote that the only difference is that the *т* is soft. The *с* is also soft, of course.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> I do not know about IPA, but in Russian phonology "семья" would be transcripted as [с'иэм'ja], but you are more or less right.


That's pretty much the same as in IPA concerning palatalisation, only that I didn't know about the change of vowel quality and the shwa vowel which is inserted after "i" - in IPA this then would be [sʲiə̯mʲja].
(I hope IPA is represented correctly on your browser; if not - that's transcribed "s'iem'ya" with the "e" being a shwa.)


----------



## phosphore

I see. I must say that "э" is not a shwa, but represents some [e] sound (I am not sure if it is [e] or [ε] in IPA). Maybe this [иэ] is represented like [ɪ] in IPA; I can't remember what is its name in Russian phonology, but in Serbian this sound's name is "i prema e" or, literally, "i to e".


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> I see. I must say that "э" is not a shwa, but represents some [e] sound (I am not sure if it is [e] or [ε] in IPA). Maybe this [иэ] is represented like [ɪ] in IPA; I can't remember what is its name in Russian phonology, but in Serbian this sound's name is "i prema e" or, literally, "i to e".


But this [e] is not syllabic, right? (Usually those superscribed vowels mean exactly that: that they are not syllabic.)
Serbian "i prema e" should mean an open [ɪ] or a closed [e] - something like (probably) [iɪ] or [ie] with the second vowel (be it [ɪ] or [e]) not being syllabic, would be my guess.


----------



## phosphore

It is a monophthong, not a diphtong, that superscripted "э" means just that the tongue is not in the position for an _ but moved a little towards the position for an [e]._


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> It is a monophthong, not a diphtong, that superscripted "э" means just that the tongue is not in the position for an _ but moved a little towards the position for an [e]._


_
Ah - now I get it!
This, then, would be a very close /e/ or in IPA [e̝]: this sound is not the same as [ɪ] because close [e̝] is a full, "tense" vowel while [ɪ] is "not tense" (slightly retracted): the rule then would be that /e/ after a palatalised consonant were pronounced slightly more closed than after a non-palatalised consonant._


----------



## gothic

Ok... I could get the idea...

But there are letters that *always* represent a sound that's already soft like "*Ч*" and "*Щ*"...
What happens with the word "Ночью" (as in "*Радуга* *Ночью*"), for example?
If "*Ч*" is already soft and "*ю*" is also soft (and "softens" the previous consonant), why on earth there's a *"**ь**"* there?
Is it because you can't write "*Я*", "*Э*", "*Ы*" and "*Ю*" after "*Ч*"? I'm not sure about that...
I need a Russian Teacher...
Then I'll stop bothering you with stupid questions...


----------



## Orlin

gothic said:


> Ok... I could get the idea...
> 
> But there are letters that represent a sound that's already soft like "Ч" and "Ш"...
> What happens with the word "Ночью" (as in "*Радуга* *Ночью*"), for example?
> If "Ч" is already soft and ю is also soft (and "softens" the previous consonant), why on earth there's a *ь* there?
> 
> I couldn't understand that...


 
In such cases *ь* is written on an etymological/traditional principle and in modern Russian it sometimes has a grammatical function: e. g. in nouns ending in the consonants ж, ш, ч, щ we put ь at the end if they're feminine (e. g. ночь, мышь) but not when they're masculine (e. g. нож, плащ). Another important case of "grammatical" ь in the 2nd person sg. present/future tense *-шь*.


----------



## gothic

Ok... You satisfied my curiosity, but I still don't understand the *"ч+ь+ю"*.
I'm almost sure that is because of the adjective... But I still feel a bit insecure about that...


----------



## Orlin

gothic said:


> Ok... You satisfied my curiosity, but I still don't understand the *"ч+ь+ю"*.
> I'm almost sure that is because of the adjective... But I still feel a bit insecure about that...


 
I think this spelling is purely traditional and doesn't affect the pronunciation of ч - simply the ending -ью is used in instrumental case sg. for all 3rd declension nouns regardless of whether ь softens the preceding consonant or not.


----------



## gothic

Now I finally I understood why...

But, when it comes to pronunciantion, I hear a slight difference between *чь* and *ч*. Maybe I getting crazy, but I believe '*ч*' is pronounced with your jaw a bit foward and '*чь*' with your tongue in the same position as when you pronounce '*нь*'.
That's why I couldn't believe when I've learned that *ч *is always soft. I always pronounced hard (maybe because of my accent), and that's why I thought that it could have a slight difference of pronounciantion.

Well, I'm waiting for more information.
Learning these kind of difference is essencial for a fluent Russian.


----------



## estreets

Sorry, no difference at all. They are pronounce the same. And it's a great problem for Russian schoolchildren to distinguish between -ч (меч etc.) and -чь (печь etc.).
They do a lot of mistakes


----------



## gothic

I knew I was crazy...
I hear different sounds...
_(I see dead people parody...)_


----------



## Maroseika

gothic said:


> What happens with the word "Ночью" (as in "*Радуга* *Ночью*"), for example?
> If "*Ч*" is already soft and "*ю*" is also soft (and "softens" the previous consonant), why on earth there's a *"**ь**"* there?


It marks that ю here stands for [йу]: ночью reads [ночйу].
And ю itself cannot be hard or soft, because it is not a consonant.


----------



## gothic

> And ю itself cannot be hard or soft, because it is not a consonant.



Sure... I forgot that...

Thank you all...


----------



## Quernon

Orlin said:


> In such cases *ь* is written on an etymological/traditional principle [-] Another important case of "grammatical" ь in the 2nd person sg. present/future tense *-шь*.



So is *шь* ever pronounced *щ*?

So the ь in 2nd person sg. doesn't change the *ш *sound at all, right?


----------



## Maroseika

Quernon said:


> So is *шь* ever pronounced *щ*?


No, never.



> So the ь in 2nd person sg. doesn't change the *ш *sound at all, right?


Right. It's just orthographical.


----------



## Awwal12

Yes, ш is always hard (retroflex, with the central part of the tongue lowered).

Curiously, there is at least one case when "щ" is pronounced as "ш" - in the word "помо́щник". That comes from the fact that the spelling is of Church Slavonic origin, but the pronunciation comes from its East Slavic cognate "помочник", with the typical Old Moscow /чн/>/шн/ development (for that part cf. конечно "of course" with [шн], as opposed to sg. neut. adj. конечно with [чн]).


----------

