# Прокофьев



## Hulalessar

It is a very long time since I studied Russian. Why is there a soft sign after <ф> in Прокофьев? What is the difference in pronunciation between Прокофьев and Прокофев?


----------



## Drink

Hulalessar said:


> It is a very long time since I studied Russian. Why is there a soft sign after <ф> in Прокофьев? What is the difference in pronunciation between Прокофьев and Прокофев?



The soft sign causes the following е to be pronounced fully as "ye" instead of just "e". The ф is probounced soft in either case.


----------



## Maroseika

Just to add: Прокофьев derives from the personal name Прокофий, hence the sound й in the derivative patronymic. Orthographiclly it is marked by use of "ь" (разделительный мягкий знак), as Drink explained.


----------



## Rosett

The last name Прокофьев derives from the first name Прокофий, put in the Gen. case, as if in "son of Прокофий". For the reasons of euphony, 'и' in the given position reduces to 'ь' (which used to be a vowel until 12th century in Ancient Russian.)
X-posted with Maroseika.


----------



## Sobakus

_-ьев_ is _-иев_ [ijef] with the reduction of и orthographically marked – it no longer makes a syllable, but the [j] remains, thus contrasting with the j-less C_ев/_C_ов_ (C=consonant). In other cases, either due to analogy or for ease of pronunciation, the -и- may not be reduced, such as in _Акакиев_.


----------



## Awwal12

Rosett said:


> The last name Прокофьев derives from the first name Прокофий, put in the Gen. case


Sorry to interrupt, but the genitive form of "Прокофий" is, obviusly, "Прокофия". 
Here we have a possessive adjective - a class almost extinct in the modern Russian (except fairly productive adjectives ending in -ин, even despite their paradigm of declension has slightly mutated). Once, however, possessive adjectives were much more common.


----------



## Rosett

Awwal12 said:


> Sorry to interrupt, but the genitive form of "Прокофий" is, obviusly, "Прокофия".
> Here we have a possessive adjective - a class almost extinct in the modern Russian (except fairly productive adjectives ending in -ин, even despite their paradigm of declension has slightly mutated). Once, however, possessive adjectives were much more common.


This form belongs in the name naturally to the fossil genitive contemporary to what we call now patronyms.


----------



## Soroka

Сергей Прокофьев pronunciation: How to pronounce Сергей Прокофьев in Russian

февральский pronunciation: How to pronounce февральский in Russian


----------



## Hulalessar

Thank you for your contributions.

Looking at the Wikipedia article on the soft sign I see I have to distinguish between palatalisation and iotation. Before a vowel the soft sign and hard sign both indicate iotation, with the soft sign indicating that the preceding consonant is palatalised and the hard sign that it is not. So, to take the last part of the name:

фев = palatalised f + yef
фьев = palatalised f + i + yef
фъев = unpalatalised f + i + yef

Have I got that right?


----------



## Maroseika

Hulalessar said:


> Have I got that right?


Not exactly, maybe because you used a bit strange transcription. What "i+yef" stands for?
Using Russian letters it is as follows (I added one more varinat to make the picture full):
фэв = unpalatalised f + эф
фев = palatalised ф + еф
фьев = palatalised ф + еф
фъев = unpalatalised ф + йеф

"E" stands here for English "e" like in "red".


----------



## Drink

Hulalessar said:


> фев = palatalised f + ef
> фьев = palatalised f + yef
> фъев = unpalatalised f + yef
> 
> Have I got that right?



I have corrected it for you. Maroseika's most recent post contains a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies.


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> I have corrected it for you. Maroseika's most recent post contains a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies.


Thank you for noticing them, and I hope I managed to correct them all now.


----------



## Sobakus

I think it should go as:


Maroseika said:


> Using Russian letters it is as follows (I added one more varinat to make the picture full):
> фэв = unpalatalised ф + эф
> фев = palatalised ф + эф
> фьев = palatalised ф + еф
> фъев = unpalatalised ф + еф



I find it easier to just say that Ь/Ъ are dummy vowels, one soft and one hard – the rest follows from the normal pronunciation rules. On practice, they are actually still shwas.


----------



## Drink

Maroseika said:


> Thank you for noticing them, and I hope I managed to correct them all now.



I don't know what you corrected, but all the mistakes and inconsistencies I saw before are still there.

Here's how I would correct them:


Maroseika said:


> фэв = unpalatalised ф + еф
> фев = palatalised ф + еф
> фьев = palatalised ф + йеф
> фъев = unpalatalised ф + йеф


----------



## Maroseika

Sobakus said:


> I find it easier to just say that Ь/Ъ are dummy vowels, one soft and one hard – the rest follows from the normal pronunciation rules.


Dummy vowels? What does it mean? I think one of the problems is the lack of pure й in English.



Drink said:


> I don't know what you corrected, but all the mistakes and inconsistencies I saw before are still there.
> 
> Here's how I would correct them:
> фэв = unpalatalised ф + еф
> фев = palatalised ф + еф
> фьев = palatalised ф + йеф
> фъев = unpalatalised ф + йеф


Agree with фьеф = palatalised ф + йеф.
But фэв = unpalatalised ф + еф seems to me incorrect. The vowel is more open here, than е  like in "red", it's pure Russian э.


----------



## Drink

Maroseika said:


> I think one of the problems is the lack of pure й in English.



What are you talking about? English has "y" for that.


----------



## Sobakus

Maroseika said:


> Dummy vowels? What does it mean? I think one of the problems is the lack of pure й in English.


They make the following е/я/ё/ю behave as if they were following a vowel, but they don't represent a vowel themselves. I also don't see how English is missing the [j] – _yellow, cue, piñata_ all have the sound. I'd say its the Russian й that's more of the [ɪ] of _soviet_ if anything.


----------



## Drink

Maroseika said:


> Agree with фьеф = palatalised ф + йеф.
> But фэв = unpalatalised ф + еф seems to me incorrect. The vowel is more open here, than е  like in "red", it's pure Russian э.



I actually agree with you there, but that is an incidental minor detail of the precise pronunciation and is probably not worth mentioning here. You'll also probably notice that if the second ф is also palatalized, then the е is pronounced differently too.


----------



## Maroseika

Sobakus said:


> They make the following е/я/ё/ю behave as if they were following a vowel, but they don't represent a vowel themselves. I also don't see how English is missing the [j] – _yellow, cue, piñata_ all have the sound. I'd say its the Russian й that's more of the [ɪ] of _soviet_ if anything.


Yes, I agree, it is transcribed as [j], I forgot about that.
So we may represent it like that:
фэв = unpalatalised f + æf (actually not as open as real æ)
фев = palatalised f + ef
фьев = palatalised f + jef
фъев = unpalatalised f + jef


----------



## Sobakus

I think orthographically distinguishing two kinds of /e/ will be a bit confusing for the learner (at least with the Cyrillic transcription), seeing as the *letter Е *stands for [je], and additionally as there are actually 3 kinds depending on the softness of both the preceding and the following consonant as Drink notices (semi-open, central and semi-closed). 

Also, I think it's worth noting that on practice, reproducing the contrast between hard labial + yod and soft labial + yod is hardly possible (but the dentals for instance maintain it in the standard pronunciation).


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> I'd say its the Russian й that's more of the [ɪ] of _soviet_ if anything.



If you are talking about the English word _soviet_, I would say I pronounce it without any й at all "SO-vee-it" (IPA: ['soʊ.vi.ɪt]).


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> If you are talking about the English word _soviet_, I would say I pronounce it without any й at all "SO-vee-it" (IPA: ['soʊ.vi.ɪt]).


The AE pronunciation I'm accustomed to is [soʊvɪʲet] or even [sɒvɪʲet], with a j-glide between the two vowels that sounds to me about the same as in Вьетнам.


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> The AE pronunciation I'm accustomed to is [soʊvɪet].



If by AE you mean "American English", then that is not possible. In standard AE, [ɪ] does not occur before vowels, and [e] does not exist at all outside the diphthong [eɪ] (and of you meant [ɛ], then that gets reduced to [ɪ] in unstressed syllables).


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> If by AE you mean "American English", then that is not possible. In standard AE, [ɪ] does not occur before vowels, and [e] does not exist at all outside the diphthong [eɪ] (and of you meant [ɛ], then that gets reduced to [ɪ] in unstressed syllables).


I just hear a bigger difference than [iɪ] there together with a glide.


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> I just hear a bigger difference than [iɪ] there together with a glide.


Well [ i] and [ɪ] are very different. Maybe there is a bit of a glide between them, but it is still a 3-syllable word.


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> Well [ i] and [ɪ] are very different. Maybe there is a bit of a glide between them, but it is still a 3-syllable word.


By the way, what are some examples of unstressed [i.] before vowels_?_


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> By the way, what are some examples of unstressed [.i] before vowels_?_



In the words _rad*i*o_, _ster*e*o_, _man*i*a_, _carr*i*er_, _cer*e*al_, etc.


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> In the words _rad*i*o_, _ster*e*o_, _man*i*a_, _carr*i*er_, _cer*e*al_, etc.


I'd certainly transcribe them as [ɪ].


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> I'd certainly transcribe them as [ɪ].



In some varieties of British English, maybe. Not in American.


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> In some varieties of British English, sure. Not in American.


The only instance of unstressed [i.] in AE I can think of is in _-ly_, but even there the predominant pronunciation is [lɪ] – [li] sounds very British. What would you call the last vowel in _only _or _really_? I hear a very clear distinction between the two varieties in these words.


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> The only instance of unstressed [i.] in AE I can think of is in _-ly_, but even there the predominant pronunciation is [lɪ] – [li] sounds very British. What would you call the last vowel in _only _or _really_? I hear a very clear distinction between the two varieties in these words.



In Australian English, most varieties of British English, and Southern US English, it is [lɪ]. In London nowadays and in most of the US, it's [li].


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> In Australian English, most varieties of British English, and Southern US English, it is [lɪ]. In London nowadays and in most of the US, it's [li].


It looks to me like we're transcribing the two sounds the opposite way. Would your really say that the first 2 pronunciations of _only_ aren't [li] and the last 3 – [lɪ]? And as for the Australian English [ɪ], it's unquestionably an [i.] as you can hear in the last recording of _bit_ or read and see on the chart here. In that variety, _-ly_ is a diphthong.


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> It looks to me like we're transcribing the two sounds the opposite way. Would your really say that the first 2 pronunciations of _only_ aren't [li] and the last 3 – [lɪ]? And as for the Australian English [ɪ], it's unquestionably an [i.] as you can hear in the last recording of _bit_ or read and see on the chart here. In that variety, _-ly_ is a diphthong.



I'm not an expert on Australian English, but what I know is that when Australian actress Portia de Rossi played an American in the TV series _Arrested Development_, her biggest giveaway was that she pronounced _anything_ as [ˈɛnɪθɪŋ], rather than the American [ˈɛniθɪŋ].

I am not confusing the two sounds. [ɪ] is the vowel in _bit_, and [ i] is a shorter version of the vowel in _beet_.


----------



## Hulalessar

I think I have it. What I was doing was putting in an extra bit.

However, I refer to this section of the Wikipedia page: Soft sign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Ignoring the references to languages other than Russian is what is said correct?


----------



## Drink

Hulalessar said:


> I think I have it. What I was doing was putting in an extra bit.
> 
> However, I refer to this section of the Wikipedia page: Soft sign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Ignoring the references to languages other than Russian is what is said correct?



Yes. Your mistake was putting in an extra "i", when the iotation is the "y" in "yef" itself.


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> Yes. Your mistake was putting in an extra "i", when the iotation is the "y" in "yef" itself.


"фев = palatalised f + yef" was just as incorrect.


----------



## Awwal12

Rosett said:


> This form belongs in the name naturally to the fossil genitive contemporary to what we call now patronyms.


And what is the point of calling it genitive here, when it wasn't functioning as such at least as early as Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic?


Spoiler



Василькъ Васильковъ
Василька Василькова
Васильку Василькову
Василькъ Васильковъ
Василькъмь Васильковъмь
Васильцѣ Васильковѣ
Васильче -


It could only be confusing to foreign learners.


----------

