# Original form of "жгет"



## bibaforever

I failed to get the original form of "жгет" ...

Где дождик льет и снег идет И знойный ветер _жгет

_Where rain is pouring and snow is falling, and hot wind is XXX ing ....

I guess it would be "жечь", but I'm not sure about it.


----------



## Ptak

It's *жечь* (to burn).


----------



## bibaforever

I looked up my slovar', but couldn't find "жгет" in the present tense list, it was "жжёт" instead .. which made me quite confused


----------



## Imaginary

Bibaforever, in Russian it is '_ж*ж*ет_' (not _ж*г*ет_). I suppose 'Where rain is pouring and snow is falling, and hot wind is *burning*' is possible. 
There are some expressions in English such as 'wind*burned* face/lips/skin'.


----------



## bibaforever

But it seems to me that "жгет" is pronounced like [shg'yot]


----------



## bibaforever

What's the correct pronunciation of "жжёт" ? (two "zh"s in a row ...)


----------



## Imaginary

bibaforever said:


> What's the correct pronunciation of "жжёт" ? (two "zh"s in a row ...)


[zhzhɔt]


----------



## bibaforever

Ptak i Imaginary, spasibo.


----------



## Maroseika

bibaforever said:


> I failed to get the original form of "жгет" ...



This form is really used sometimes in the illiterate speech. Correct form is жжёт, of course.


----------



## Syline

bibaforever said:


> What's the correct pronunciation of "жжёт" ? (two "zh"s in a row ...)


It's just [zhot]. Pronounce one [zh], not two.


----------



## rusita preciosa

Syline said:


> It's just [zhot]. Pronounce one [zh], not two.


May be it is not two distinct ж's, but you do stretch the ж. To me there is an audible diference between жжёт and жёт (if the latter word existed).


----------



## Imaginary

Syline said:


> It's just [zhot]. Pronounce one [zh], not two.


I don't agree. It's better to pronounce [zhzh] fast. Then it will sound as long consonant sound [ж:] = [zh:].


----------



## Maroseika

There is the same long ж like in разжевать, дрожжи, etc.


----------



## Syline

Imaginary said:


> I don't agree. It's better to pronounce [zhzh] fast. Then it will sound as long consonant sound [ж:] = [zh:].


Well, [zhzh] (two separate 'zh') is obviously not [zh:] (prolonged 'zh'). And in rapid speech [zh:] transforms into [zh] all the same.


----------



## Imaginary

Syline said:


> Well, [zhzh] (two separate 'zh') is obviously not [zh:] (prolonged 'zh'). And in rapid speech [zh:] transforms into [zh] all the same.


I disagree again. In rapid speech [zhzh] transforms into [zh:]. [zh:] doesn't transform into [zh], because [zh:] is a _long_ consonant sound.


----------



## Syline

Imaginary said:


> [zh:] doesn't transform into [zh], because [zh:] is a _long_ consonant sound.


Вот так аргумент! Боюсь, после такого мне лучше умыть руки.


----------



## Imaginary

Syline said:


> Вот так аргумент! Боюсь, после такого мне лучше умыть руки.


Можете умыть руки, но ни один русскоговорящий не произнесет "жжет" как отрывистое [жот]. Rusita preciosa это справедливо отметил. 
В слове "жжет" ДВЕ буквы "ж", с которыми необходимо считаться в речи. Несомненно, удвоенное "ж" превращается в долгий звук "ж" и никак иначе! 
Глупо "умывать" руки, не приведя аргументов к своему мнению, которое противоречит мнениям нескольких человек, неправда ли?
http://www.textfighter.org/text1/14_proiznosyatsya_slova_dvoynoy_9.php


----------



## covar

The correct pronunciation of the word "жжёт"


----------



## Imaginary

covar said:


> The correct pronunciation of the word "жжёт"


[жж*о*т], а не [ж*ьо*т].

Here is the *right* phonetic transcription of the word '_жжёный_':
http://slovonline.ru/slovar_el_fonetic/b-0/id-35216/zhzhyonyj.html


----------



## covar

Added more common variant of pronunciation.
 Both variants are valid pronunciation. 
It depends on where you live.


----------



## covar

Например, слово "дождь" в разных местностях могут произносить по-разному. И "дощщь" (!), и "дошть" (!).


----------



## Sobakus

It's either a *long ж*, or, somewhat outdated, a *voiced щ* (i.e. a long soft ж), but either way it's by no means short.


----------



## Imaginary

covar said:


> Added more common variant of pronunciation.
> Both variants are valid pronunciation.
> It depends on where you live.


That's the right pronunciation. If you click on the link I've posted before, you'll realize that the correct phonetic transcription of the word '_жжет_' is [жж*о*т].
No one native Russian speaker will pronounce the short sound [ж]. I wonder why Syline hasn't recognized his/her mistake yet.


----------



## covar

Увы, но большинство русских, если их специально не поправляли учителя русского языка, говорят все-таки "жгёт". В российской деревне говорят только так. Дело в том, что это долгое жужжание при официально правильном произнесении слова "жжёт" неестественно для русских. И если я говорю (правильно) "я жгу", то автоматически (если меня не поправить), я скажу "он жгёт". Правильно говорят только те, кто учился правилам русского языка и видел это слово написанным.

Кстати, поэтому в Интернете появилось издевательское написание этого слова, но фонетически правильное: "Аффтар жжот."

А при очень быстром темпе речи это "жж" (двойное) превращается в одинарное и слово действительно звучит как "жот".


----------



## Maroseika

covar said:


> Увы, но большинство русских, если их специально не поправляли учителя русского языка, говорят все-таки "жгёт". В российской деревне говорят только так. Дело в том, что это долгое жужжание при официально правильном произнесении слова "жжёт" неестественно для русских. И если я говорю (правильно) "я жгу", то автоматически (если меня не поправить), я скажу "он жгёт". Правильно говорят только те, кто учился правилам русского языка и видел это слово написанным.
> А при очень быстром темпе речи это "жж" (двойное) превращается в одинарное и слово действительно звучит как "жот".


Невозможно с вами согласиться. Долгое ж вполне естественно для русского языка, встречается во множестве слов и обычно не вызывает никаких затруднений: дрожжи, вожжи, разжечь, разжалобить, разжевать, разжижать и т.п. А вариант [жот] в устах носителя русского языка вообще немыслим, каким бы неграмотным он ни был. Никакой неуч не спутает жжёнку с жёнкой. А если и спутает, чрезмерно увлекшись первой, последняя его быстро научит родному языку.

Вариант "жгет" не вызван никакими фонетическими затруднениями, а является всего лишь ненормативным вариантом парадигмы (как ехай, ложить и т.п.).


----------



## Imaginary

covar said:


> Увы, но большинство русских, если их специально не поправляли учителя русского языка, говорят все-таки "жгёт". В российской деревне говорят только так. Дело в том, что это долгое жужжание при официально правильном произнесении слова "жжёт" неестественно для русских. И если я говорю (правильно) "я жгу", то автоматически (если меня не поправить), я скажу "он жгёт". Правильно говорят только те, кто учился правилам русского языка и видел это слово написанным.
> 
> Кстати, поэтому в Интернете появилось издевательское написание этого слова, но фонетически правильное: "Аффтар жжот."
> 
> А при очень быстром темпе речи это "жж" (двойное) превращается в одинарное и слово действительно звучит как "жот".


Как я и писал выше, двойное [жж] *не может* превратиться в одинарное [ж]. Пройдите по ссылке на предыдущей странице, и Вы увидите транскрипцию, представленную *фонетическим* словарем русского языка. 
Двойное [жж] может превратиться в длинный согласный звук [ж:] при быстрой речи и *никак* иначе.


----------



## Syline

Imaginary said:


> I wonder why Syline hasn't recognized his/her mistake yet.


Долго думала отвечать, не отвечать... вроде как руки уже умыла. 
Не было нигде моей ошибки, никогда не отрицала, что там по умолчанию [zh:], которая, тем не менее, редуцируется в быстрой речи до [zh]. Это естественный процесс. Замедленным темпом речи не страдаю.


----------



## gvozd

To Covar


> А при очень быстром темпе речи это "жж" (двойное) превращается в одинарное и слово действительно звучит как "жот".



Да ну, в самом деле? И насколько же быстрым должен быть темп речи?


----------



## Imaginary

syline said:


> долго думала отвечать, не отвечать... вроде как руки уже умыла.
> не было нигде моей ошибки, никогда не отрицала, что там по умолчанию [zh:], которая, тем не менее, редуцируется в быстрой речи до [zh]. это естественный процесс. замедленным темпом речи не страдаю.


Короткое "ж" возможно услышать разве чтo при просмотре новостей.


----------



## Dhira Simha

The initial question, which, it appears, have long been  forgotten by some participants, was "the original form"  and not dialectal pronunciation norms.  The 'original form' presupposes a diachronic approach. The 'official' etymology of  жечь - жгу  is based on associating this word with Lith. _degù_, _dègti_ "burn", Ltv. _degu_, _degt_ "burn", Skr. _dáhati_ "to burn, consume by fire, scorch roast" and Avest. _dažaiti_ (idem)  See Vasmer.  If we accept it, then we should regard /г/ as an original sound  but this etymology is highly controversial. Not only the transition of /d/ to /ž/ needs to be explained, but also the double consonant  be it /žg/ or /žž/.  In a pleophonic (in a wide sense) language the norm would be CVC  so the original form may be imagined as *žVg оr žVž.  Such examples as _зажигать_ confirm this. In my view, the 'original' form was   *žVg-  where V stands for a "neutral" vowel which in  Russian  drifts in the area of /ы - и/. In fact, the reconstructed Proto-Slavonic form is *_žegǫ_.  Therefore, the "correct" form  should be  _*жгет_  and not _жжёт_ which  originally derives from a  more palatalising (southern) dialect and became accepted as a norm in "standard Russian". In my view, we should consider _жжёт_  as a conventional spelling norm but  it is legitimate to pronounce it as /жжёт/ and /жгёт/ depending on your individual (regional)  basis of articulation. A separate question is whether Vasmer's etymology is correct. I, for one, have serious doubts although  I am not ready yet to advance an alternative. Among Skr words I  tentatively consider  _śuc_ - _śocati_  "to shine, flame, gleam, glow, burn"  but it is also controversial and needs more research.


----------



## Sobakus

Dhira Simha said:


> In fact, the reconstructed Proto-Slavonic form is *_žegǫ_.  Therefore, the "correct" form  should be  _*жгет_  and not _жжёт_ which  originally derives from a  more palatalising (southern) dialect and became accepted as a norm in "standard Russian".



Sorry, what? So, бежит, печёт, пишет are now wrong too, and we all should say бегит, пекёт, писет? What nonsense is that?


----------



## Maroseika

Sobakus said:


> Sorry, what? So, бежит, печёт, пишет are now wrong too, and we all should say бегит, пекёт, писет? What nonsense is that?



He wrote "correct", not correct. Meaning - regular, I think (and providing nothing else has happenned in the language since that time).


----------



## Sobakus

Maroseika said:


> He wrote "correct", not correct. Meaning - regular, I think (and providing nothing else has happenned in the language since that time).



The г=>ж change before front vowels is regular, results from 2 palatalisations and is still productive in certain contexts. Жгёт is correct by no measure, it may be caused by a preceding consonant (similar to *лгёт, ткёт). Such forms look like nothing more than jokular to me. Moreover, there are no "more palatalising (southern) dialects", as is there no, and was no "neutral vowel in the area of /ы - и/". The whole post looks very much like pseudo-science to me.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Maroseika, thank you! This is exactly what I meant.  The palatal/velar  alternation is an unquestionable norm in Russian and many other languages (i.e.  Sanskrit). The alternation in жжет/жгу is of the same  nature  as in печёт/пеку,  still, in my opinion, it is a slightly different case.  In spoken speech the tendency for palatalisation may be  compensated in this particular case by a counter tendency for dissimilation which may explain the wide spread of pronunciation of  жжёт as*жгёт 





> Covar: Увы, но большинство русских, если их специально не поправляли учителя русского языка, говорят все-таки "жгёт".


 which is "out of the rule"  but should not be discarded mechanically as "wrong". An interesting point here is also that жжение is never pronounced as *жгение. A good topic for a paper


----------



## Dhira Simha

Sorry, Sobakus, you are probably not an expert in this particular area. Please re-read at least Bogorodickij, V. A., _Lektsii po obščemu jazykovedeniju [Lectures on general linguistics]_ (Kazan University, 1915). "В русском типичным индифферентным гласным является несколько иной звук - ъ (род слабого краткого ы) после твердых согласных и ь (род слабого краткого \breve{\imath} ) после мягких"  and Olaf Broch Broch, Olaf, _Slavische Phonetik ._ (Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1911).


----------



## Sobakus

Dhira Simha said:


> Sorry, Sobakus, you are probably not an expert in this particular area.



I indeed am not, and it looks like neither are you. However, I know perfectly well what soft and hard yers are, and the general consensus is that they were super short _ and  respectively. These vowels were present in Old Russian at the latest, they disappeared around 13th century, moreover, they made the consonants soft or hard, not the other way around, so your book quote is nonsense.

Now, a neutral vowel is a shwa, and in Russian a shwa is an unstressed <o> at the end of a word. Actually, your musings about this vowel look kind of strange to me, because the Baltic forms (let alone the law of open syllables) make it fairly obvious that there was a vowel, its absence says it was a yer, and the d=>ž change testifies it was a soft yer.

As for not discarding a wrong word form as wrong, well, be my guest. It won't stop being wrong anyway._


----------



## Dhira Simha

Sobakus, this is getting off-topic. Suffice it to say that  I got my MA degree (with distinction) on  "Basis of Articulation".  If you want to contribute something constructive, please explain to the respected members of the forum why "большинство русских, если их специально не поправляли учителя русского языка, говорят все-таки "жгёт""  while there seems to be no  problem with "жжение".


----------



## Sobakus

Dhira Simha said:


> please explain to the respected members of the forum why "большинство русских, если их специально не поправляли учителя русского языка, говорят все-таки "жгёт""



In my opinion this statement is wrong. I think I don't know anyone who speaks like that.



> почему говорят все-таки "жгёт"" while there seems to be no problem with "жжение".





Sobakus said:


> it may be caused by a preceding consonant (similar to *лгёт, ткёт)


Also because жжение is not a verb form and there is no paradigm to level.


----------



## covar

Как же далеки учёные-филологи от народа!



Sobakus said:


> I think I don't know anyone who speaks like that.



*Попадья жгёт!!!*

*Глава района Петербурга заявил, что "Пресса жгет памятники!" 

*


----------



## Dhira Simha

covar said:


> Как же далеки учёные-филологи от народа! /QUOTE]
> Этточно, как говорил товарищ Сухов
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also because жжение is not a verb form and there is no paradigm to level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought but to make it work you need to collect a number of other cases.  Are we discussing your idea in the framework of phonetics, phonology or  psychology?
Click to expand...


----------



## Sobakus

Dhira Simha said:


> Interesting thought but to make it work you need to collect a number of other cases.  Are we discussing your idea in the framework of phonetics, phonology or  psychology?



Well, I'm afraid I can't discuss this problem in some particular framework, but morphological (paradigm) levelling is a known process, wherein irregular forms are discarded and replaced by regular ones. We can start from the English irregular verbs and end with руци, бозе, телеса => руки, боге, тела. Anyway, the main contributing factor seems to be that the form *ткёт* is actually the standard, whatever its story may be.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Could be... although the  г||ж  interchange and к||ч  interchange are not so close phonetically to be mutually associated by an average person for using *ткёт *as a model. Why not the other way round? I prefer to apply articulatory phonetics first and  think in terms of positional accommodation etc.  Would not comment on "бозе, телеса => руки, боге, тела" so as not to upset you at this time of night . As I understand, anything that does not fit a textbook or Shevelov's "Old Testament" is automatically pseudo-science for you. I have my personal views on this.


----------



## covar

жечь       беречь
я     ж*гу*        бере*гу*
ты   ж*жёшь *   бере*жёшь*
он   ж*жёт*      бере*жёт*
она 
оно
мы   ж*жём*     бере*жём*
вы   ж*жёте*    бере*жёте*
они  ж*гут*      бере*гут*
_etc._

Explain such coincidence.


----------



## Dhira Simha

covar said:


> жечь       беречь
> Explain such coincidence.



Comrade Covar, this is not a  coincidence, it is a regular  positionally conditioned  г||ж  interchange, however, I agree that an interesting point here is that   both these verbs share a palatalised  infinitive ending and  both appear to have lost the historical /g/ in the infinitive (without  which all other forms are hard to be explained). As somebody who  also  deals with etymology, I would  like to add that both verbs have  problematic etymology. Let me reflect on this. This is getting off-topic, I should note.


----------



## Sobakus

Dhira Simha said:


> Could be... although the  г||ж  interchange and к||ч  interchange are not so close phonetically to be mutually associated by an average person for using *ткёт *as a model.


They don't need to be. If there is an instance of a levelled paradigm in the standard language, it doesn't feel so wrong anymore and can extrapolated to other similar instances. These instances are caused by one and the same process, for your information, namely the First Slavic Palatalisation, if I'm not mistaken.


> Why not the other way round?


Erm, you might want to read what morphological levelling exactly is, I'm afraid I'm not very good at explaining.


> I prefer to apply articulatory phonetics first and  think in terms of positional accommodation etc.


Why would you bring sound changes into the mix? It obviously is a purely morphological phenomenon (see above).


> Would not comment on "бозе, телеса => руки, боге, тела" so as not to upset you at this time of night .


Pray, do not.


> As I understand, anything that does not fit a textbook or Shevelov's "Old Testament" is automatically pseudo-science for you. I have my personal views on this.


Not if the person knows what they're talking about. So far my impression's been that you do not.


Dhira Simha said:


> both these verbs share a palatalised  infinitive ending and  both appear to have lost the historical /g/ in the infinitive (without  which all other forms are hard to be explained)


This has nothing to do with what we are talking about: чь<=гти.


----------



## Dhira Simha

We are getting off-topic! The initial question was  "Original form of  жгёт" to which I replied. In doing so I highlighted some problems with  etymology of this word and the  fact that  there is indeed a strong  tendency to  break the palatalisation  rule and retain the velar in this  particular case. This tendency  cannot be explained only as "illiterate  speech" and it is one of the phenomena which fall into the category  defined by Roger Lass as "an interesting linguistic fact" so it deserves  research  and an intelligible explanation. I am inclined to explain it  within the framework of  articulatory phonetics and speech physiology  while you approach it from  positions of phonology and morphology. There  is nothing wrong with this, ideally, the two approaches should  complement each other but this rarely happens. If you have to add anything to the topic "Original form of жгёт", please do so.


----------



## Sobakus

Uh, evry language mistake is an interesting linguistic fact, every linguistic innovation was actually a mistake before it became the rule. However, reversing the results of palatalisation in verb forms is without a doubt irregular, illiterate and a mistake. You haven't provided any explaination to why we should not consider it as a mistake.

Now I don't know how you are inclined to explain this phenomenon, but so far your explaination has been:


> In fact, the reconstructed Proto-Slavonic form is *žegǫ. Therefore, the "correct" form should be *жгет and not жжёт which originally derives from a more palatalising (southern) dialect and became accepted as a norm in "standard Russian".


Which is utterly laughable and doesn't have anything to do with phonetics or physiology. I can't evevn imaginge how someone who has any clue about linguistics could write something like that. Finally, the answer to the topicstarter question is in the very first comment: жечь. Everything that could be elaborated on it has already been elaborated on the first page. Your initial comment is off-topic as well as this whole discussion.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Sorry, I find it difficult to argue with a person who genuinely believes that "every linguistic innovation was actually a mistake before it became the rule". Palatalisation or its absence were originally functional and were conditioned by a specific articulatory base of the given language/dialect. These alternations became fixed and normalised in a "standardised"  language and became prescriptive but if we see a clear tendency to  ignore  a certain formal rule it makes a case for a research. Different articulatory bases create different  phonetic environments and it may happen that some of them are (or have become) incompatible with a set "rule" which arose in a different environment. If you find this "laughable" it is your problem. I suggest you read Касаткин, Л. Л.
Современная      русская литературная и диалектная фонетика как источник для истории      русского языка_, Москва:      Наука, _*1999*  and his treatment of артикуляционная база. Since it is indeed becoming off-topic, I suggest to move into the private area if you want to continue.


----------

