# Zimno



## katie_here

How do you pronounce this word,  or mainly the Z at the beginning.


----------



## .Jordi.

Hello, Katie!



> The letters ź and zi- represent the same sound. The spelling zi- is used before a vowel, except that only z is written before i. Remember: the letter z before i is pronounced ź. The sound of ź/zi-, pronounced with the mouth and tongue in the position of English “y”, is distinct from the sound of ż/rz, pronounced with the mouth and tongue in the position of English “r”


Example: a_zu_re...
Hope it helps...

Cheers...

- J


----------



## katie_here

Thankyou very much.


----------



## njumi

I agree with *.Jordi.*. However I think that _zi_ is pronounced longer than _ź.
_


----------



## robmoney

As far as I can tell the only way that _ź_ and _zi_ differ in length is that the latter has a vowel after it.


----------



## njumi

robmoney said:


> As far as I can tell the only way that _ź_ and _zi_ differ in length is that the latter has a vowel after it.




NO! For example _ź_ in _źmno_ is pronounced shorter than _zi_ in _zimno_. Maybe it's because of the number of syllables which is reduced by changing _zi_ by _ź_, and because of it by moving the accent. However I think that it isn't like that, because the sound would be lengthened by changing _ź_ by _zi_ in longer words where accent wouldn't move (such as _październik_). The fact of making the sound longer (changing _ź_ by _zi_) may be explained by the act of creation a new additional syllable.

Of course words like _źmno _and_ pazidziernik _don't exist. I was only theorizing.


----------



## robmoney

Wogóle nie rozumiem co piszesz. I was only trying to explain it practically; the fact of the matter is that consonants don't have length at all. _Ź_ happens to be a fricative, so you can extend it just like _s_, _z_, or _sz_, to name a few. But try holding _d_ any longer than usual. It doesn't happen.


----------



## .Jordi.

Zgadzam się całkowicie z przedmówcą. Spółgłoski W OGÓLE nie mogą być dłuższe ani krótsze, to jest cecha SAMOGŁOSEK.


----------



## robmoney

Spokojnie.

I said:



robmoney said:


> As far as I can tell the only way that _ź_ and _zi_ differ in length is that the latter has a vowel after it.



You said:



njumi said:


> NO!



Maybe we should speak more precisely. _Ź_, as we agree, is a consonant, and has no vowel, thus it can have no length. _Zi_, which is an orthographic contraction of _ź_ + _i_, has a vowel, or shall we say, it is a syllable. Thus it is *infinitely* longer than _ź_.

Zgadzamy się teraz?


----------



## njumi

OK. I'll try to be more clear. I've noticed that _zi _as opposed to _ź_ can be a syllable so _zi_ oftentimes is pronounced longer (more separately) than _ź_. 

For example:
_zima_ has two syllables _zi _and _ma_, and created by me word _źma_  has only one syllable.

Word _źma_ doesn't exist and doesn't mean anything but supposedly has the same pronunciation as _zima_.

But that created by me word _źma_ would be pronounced in a different way than _zima _because in this case _ź _isn't a syllable (and never can be) and _zi_ is.


Edit:
There are words such as _poziomka. _Changing _zi _for _ź_ wouldn't change the way that you pronounce this word. However in the case of _zimno _it isn't like that. Here you can't change _zi_ for _ź_ without changing the pronunciation.

So if you're considerig stand alone _ź _and _zi_ there isn't a much difference, but while using it in certain situations (words) you can hear the change.

_ź_ in _źrebię_ isn't the same as _zi_ in _zimorodek_. (I don't know... Maybe only for me...)


----------



## robmoney

njumi said:


> OK. I'll try to be more clear. I've noticed that _zi _as opposed to _ź_ can be a syllable so _zi_ oftentimes is pronounced longer (more separately) than _ź_.



_Zi_ is *always* a syllable. Thus it is, by definition, longer than _ź_.



njumi said:


> For example:
> _zima_ has two syllables _zi _and _ma_, and created by me word _źma_  has only one syllable.
> 
> Word _źma_ doesn't exist and doesn't mean anything but supposedly has the same pronunciation as _zima_.



This is not true. _Ź_ by itself is only the *consonantal* portion of the sound created by writing _z_ + _i_. It has *no vowel*.



njumi said:


> But that created by me word _źma_ would be pronounced in a different way than _zima _because in this case _ź _isn't a syllable (and never can be) and _zi_ is.



Okay, understood.



njumi said:


> Edit:
> There are words such as _poziomka. _Changing _zi _for _ź_ wouldn't change the way that you pronounce this word.



That is because in _poziomka_ there is an _o_ to retain the syllable. If you removed that letter, *_pozimka_ would not sound the same as *_poźmka._ It would have another syllable.



njumi said:


> However in the case of _zimno _it isn't like that. Here you can't change _zi_ for _ź_ without changing the pronunciation.



This should be clear now.



njumi said:


> So if you're considerig stand alone _ź _and _zi_ there isn't a much difference, but while using it in certain situations (words) you can hear the change.



There's an *entire* difference of *a vowel*.



njumi said:


> _ź_ in _źrebię_ isn't the same as _zi_ in _zimorodek_. (I don't know... Maybe only for me...)



No, not just for you. For everyone. How else can this be explained?

_Z_ is a consonant. In Polish, when there is an _i_ after it, it must change to the sound _ź_, which is simply another, different consonant with absolutely no vowels attached. Because the only result of _z_ + _i_ is that the _z_ sound becomes a _ź_ sound, you just write _zi_. Do not, however, think that _ź_ by itself has some inherent vocalic quality. It's just a spółgłoska like any other.


----------



## BezierCurve

I guess there would be no need to clarify that phenomenon, if we wrote ź for the [ʑ] sound in both cases - also before "i" - like: maź - maźi. But we don't. Same thing for ś/si, ć/ci.


----------



## katie_here

Should I throw some Zimno Voda on you two? 


Thank you anyway. It was kind of you to help.


----------



## robmoney

I suppose that did get pretty heated for a discussion about couple letters. Well, apologies to the forum and kind regards to you njumi... no hard feelings.


----------



## katie_here

robmoney said:


> I suppose that did get pretty heated for a discussion about couple letters. Well, apologies to the forum and kind regards to you njumi... no hard feelings.


 
I thought it was funny!!!


----------



## .Jordi.

robmoney said:


> Because the only result of _z_ + _i_ is that the _z_ sound becomes a _ź_ sound, you just write _zi_.


Gwoli ścisłości tylko ośmielę się nieśmiało dodać, że są wyrazy, w których połączenie _z+i_ nie odpowiada dźwiękowi [ź].


----------



## mcibor

.Jordi. said:


> Gwoli ścisłości tylko ośmielę się nieśmiało dodać, że są wyrazy, w których połączenie _z+i_ nie odpowiada dźwiękowi [ź].




E.g. zintegrowany 

Kate, I sent you link to some ringtone with word Zima
To listen to it, you need to just click "Posłuchaj" on the mobile


----------



## JakubikF

Whole your discussion leads me to the conclusion that Polish orthography should be reformed in a small part. If we had written "źima, poźiomka, śiwy, śę, słońa" but "zintegrowany, źrebię, sinus", there would have been any doubts of the way it should be pronounced. What do you think?


----------



## mcibor

brr, looks horrible 

Strangely, look, that if you write some tekst without any of the Polish letter, there would only be slight misunderstanding:

Przyjdz do mnie, zrob mi te laske

as there is łaska and laska, but still you would be understood

PS. If you will change ortography to match phonetics you will have further problems as:

Mam japko, ale ći jabłek ńje dam

Then how will you explain that 1 japko changes to 5 jabłek? The root of the word is "ja" or what?


----------



## Thomas1

I was wondering what had drawn so much attention in this discussion, which seemed not to be so complicated. The answer to the original question has already been given but the off-topic comparison of the two makes some storm in a cup of tea, doesn't it. 



robmoney said:


> Wogóle nie rozumiem co piszesz. I was only trying to explain it practically; the fact of the matter is that consonants don't have length at all. _Ź_ happens to be a fricative, so you can extend it just like _s_, _z_, or _sz_, to name a few. But try holding _d_ any longer than usual. It doesn't happen.





.Jordi. said:


> Zgadzam się całkowicie z przedmówcą. Spółgłoski W OGÓLE nie mogą być dłuższe ani krótsze, to jest cecha SAMOGŁOSEK.


I realise this is beyond the point in this discussion, but just for the sake of clarity, there exists length of consonants too (e.g. Italian, Arabic and not so distinct in Polish).

Tom


----------



## Piotr_WRF

Thomas1 said:


> I realise this is beyond the point in this discussion, but just for the sake of clarity, there exists length of consonants too (e.g. Italian, Arabic and not so distinct in Polish).



I guess you mean double consonants here, like _lekki_ (pol. _light_) or _secco_ (ita. _dry_), don't you?


----------



## JakubikF

mcibor said:


> brr, looks horrible
> 
> Mam japko, ale ći jabłek ńje dam
> 
> Then how will you explain that 1 japko changes to 5 jabłek? The root of the word is "ja" or what?



First of all, the fact weather my suggestions look horrible or not is just your own, subjunctive opinion. De gustibus non desputantum est. 

Secondly, I purposed something absolutely different than this what you have written above. I wouldn't accept the spelling "japko" at all. By the way, in my opinion, while pronouncing, there are no such sounds in the word "nie" as "ńje". It is simple "ńe".


----------



## robmoney

Piotr_WRF said:


> I guess you mean double consonants here, like _lekki_ (pol. _light_) or _secco_ (ita. _dry_), don't you?



I would say that there is a difference between Polish and Italian. In Polish adjacent vowel length is unaffected, whereas in Italian it is.


----------



## Thomas1

The phenomenon itself is the same in both languages, isn't it?


Piotr_WRF said:


> I guess you mean double consonants here, like _lekki_ (pol. _light_) or _secco_ (ita. _dry_), don't you?


Yes geminates, it doesn't have to always be two consonants, sometimes a consonant that is to be prolonged is accompanied by a special sign, e.g.: shadda or nothing unusual syntactic doubling.

Tom


----------



## kknd

Someone before wrote about unifying "ź" and "zi" (he even used ipa alphabet – sorry for not checking who he was). There is also another reason for not doing this, I think partly connected with whole discussion about syllables. "zi" is softened version of "ź" by "i" standing after it, the same situation emerges with "ć" (ćma), "ci" (cis – a tree).

So this is a situation when phonetics had impact on writing, it would be very difficult in contemporary Polish to find a word where vowel is preceeded with "ź", "ć", "ś". Words like "zima" and not "źma" could be probably explained by yers, but this exceeds my slim knowledge...

I would also disagree with previous statement that only vowels have quality of length. This is true in Polish, where every consonant should be distinguished if doubled: "wanna, panna, sanna", but when talking about sounds we clearly see that negligent pronounciation of these is distinct from "wana, pana, sana". In other languages is can be different, though, and length of consonant might be relevant feature.


----------

