# Consonant pairs



## LucMorningstar666

Hello everyone,

I have a question about consonant pairs. I have been told that there are 10 in polish. I understand the usage of b-p, d-t, g-k, w-f, z-s,ż-sz, ź-ś,dz-c but I'm not sure about dź-ć and dz-cz. For example, if a imperative is used, like idź, dź is still pronounced as dź and not as ć, isn't it? The rule, that the consonant changes to another one is only valid for infinitives/mianowniks or am I wrong? So In odpowiedź, the dź should change to ć. The consonant pair dz-cz is strange to me. Can someone give me an example? I also wonder if the pair dz-cz exists, when do I use dz-cz and when dz-c? 

Thank you for helping me.


----------



## zaffy

To the best of my knowledge, a voiced sound at the end of a word always gets devoiced if it is not followed by another voiced sound or a vowel.

So, 'Idź!' will be devoiced to /ić/. But in "idź już", devocing will not take place .


LucMorningstar666 said:


> dz-cz


You meant dż-cz.
Yes, the same process. The 'dż' in "brydż" will be devoiced. But in "Grać w brydża", the devoicing will be stopped by the vowel /a/.

"Mózg" becomes "mósk", but not in "mózgu" as devoicing is stopped by /u/.


----------



## ornityna

At the end of words, voiced non-sonorants (b, v, d, z, g etc.) are devoiced:
_kod _[kot] 'code', _rób_ [rup] 'do' imper. itd.
Moreover, if the next word begins with a voiced non-sonorant, the voiceless series is voiced:
_kot _[kot] 'cat', but _kot_ _bogdana_ [kod bogdana] 'Bogdan's cat'.
Therefore, there is no contrast between these pairs at the end of words.

If you want to look at the sounds (i) c-dz [ts dz], (ii) ć-dź [tɕ dʑ], (iii) cz-dż [tʂ dʐ], you should look inside words/word-initially. Here are some examples:
(i) _cucę _- _cudze _
'bring to consciousness' - 'foreign'
(ii) _macie_ - _Madzie_
'you have' - 'Magdalena' dim.pl.
(iii) _czczy _- _dżdży_
'idle' - 'rain'

These sounds are also contrastive between each other, so you can find minimal pairs for any one pair of them (_kace_ - _kacze_, _tacka _- _taczka _etc.).


----------



## jasio

Desonorisation occurs also inside the words in consonant clusters, for example in "śliwka" [v]->[f]. In these contexts even sonorants are devoiced, although normally they are considered to not have their devoiced counterparts. But, for example, in "krwawy" [krfavɨ] my vocal cords begin to vibrate as late as in "a".



ornityna said:


> Moreover, if the next word begins with a voiced non-sonorant, the voiceless series is voiced:


Isn't it a dialectal feature?


----------



## ornityna

jasio said:


> Isn't it a dialectal feature?


Yes. What I wrote is for Standard Polish. In the south (e.g., Cracow), the same rule of voice assimilation works not only for non-sonorants, but also for sonorants (including vowels). E.g.:
SP: _kot Adama _[kot adama] 'Adam's cat'
Cracow: _kot Adama _[kod adama]


----------



## zaffy

ornityna said:


> Cracow: _kot Adama _[kod adama]


Need to disagree.  Born and raised here in Cracow and no one says /kod adama/. Nor can I imagine hearing that.


----------



## ornityna

zaffy said:


> Need to disagree.  Born and raised here in Cracow and no one says /kod adama/. Nor can I imagine hearing that.


I can think of two explanations to this: either, for some reason, this dialect has died out in your area or you fell victim to phonetic illusion.
Phonetic illusion happens when speakers think they hear something that is not there or they do not hear something that is there. For example, most Poles would swear there is a difference in the pronunciation of _kod _'code'_ vs. kot _'cat'. However, these words are phonetically identical: [kɔt].
Here you have an article with some data about Cracow voicing (Section 4):
http://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl:8080/bitstream/10593/7474/1/PSiCL_44_3_Michalski.pdf


----------



## Włoskipolak 72

zaffy said:


> Need to disagree.  Born and raised here in Cracow and no one says /kod adama/. Nor can I imagine hearing that.


I was born in Zakopane but I have lived in Cracow ..., and I would say kod adama... 

Than I was thinking about : wietrzny (wiatr) and wieczny (wieki) in this case I would always say wieczny..


----------



## Panceltic

Włoskipolak 72 said:


> I was born in Zakopane but I have lived in Cracow ..., and I would say kod adama...
> 
> Than I was thinking about : wietrzny (wiatr) and wieczny (wieki) in this case I would always say wieczny..



What about trzy and czy?


----------



## jasio

Włoskipolak 72 said:


> I was born in Zakopane but I have lived in Cracow ..., and I would say kod adama...


Oh... so you may also distinguish between "rz" and "ż" in the spoken language - at least when speaking dialect?


----------



## Włoskipolak 72

jasio said:


> Oh... so you may also distinguish between "rz" and "ż" in the spoken language - at least when speaking dialect?


I have lived in Zakopane for 20 years..., and honestly what's that (''rz'' or "ż") got to do with kot (d) Adama ..!?


----------



## jasio

Włoskipolak 72 said:


> I have lived in Zakopane for 20 years..., and honestly what's that (''rz'' or "ż") got to do with kot (d) Adama ..!?


Actually, nothing. I was just curious, because some consonants (including the said "rz" and "ż" along with their voiceless counterparts) evolved in a different way in the dialect which has eventually become a basis of the standard pronunciation, and in the local dialect in Podhale.

Sorry for off-topc.


----------



## Ben Jamin

ornityna said:


> I can think of two explanations to this: either, for some reason, this dialect has died out in your area or you fell victim to phonetic illusion.
> Phonetic illusion happens when speakers think they hear something that is not there or they do not hear something that is there. For example, most Poles would swear there is a difference in the pronunciation of _kod _'code'_ vs. kot _'cat'. However, these words are phonetically identical: [kɔt].
> Here you have an article with some data about Cracow voicing (Section 4):
> http://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl:8080/bitstream/10593/7474/1/PSiCL_44_3_Michalski.pdf


I have heard many people pronouncing kod as /kod/, not  /kot/ beacuse they wanted to emphasize the meaning of the word.

Besides, thanks for your comment on the opinions of the type "never heard that". They are of a very dubious value.


----------



## LucMorningstar666

zaffy said:


> To the best of my knowledge, a voiced sound at the end of a word always gets devoiced if it is not followed by another voiced sound or a vowel.
> 
> So, 'Idź!' will be devoiced to /ić/. But in "idź już", devocing will not take place .
> 
> You meant dż-cz.
> Yes, the same process. The 'dż' in "brydż" will be devoiced. But in "Grać w brydża", the devoicing will be stopped by the vowel /a/.
> 
> "Mózg" becomes "mósk", but not in "mózgu" as devoicing is stopped by /u/.


Ok, so that means that imperatives with ć like zapłać! are just spelled differently although many imperatives have dź at the end but still are pronounced in the same way.


----------



## LucMorningstar666

ornityna said:


> At the end of words, voiced non-sonorants (b, v, d, z, g etc.) are devoiced:
> _kod _[kot] 'code', _rób_ [rup] 'do' imper. itd.
> Moreover, if the next word begins with a voiced non-sonorant, the voiceless series is voiced:
> _kot _[kot] 'cat', but _kot_ _bogdana_ [kod bogdana] 'Bogdan's cat'.
> Therefore, there is no contrast between these pairs at the end of words.
> 
> If you want to look at the sounds (i) c-dz [ts dz], (ii) ć-dź [tɕ dʑ], (iii) cz-dż [tʂ dʐ], you should look inside words/word-initially. Here are some examples:
> (i) _cucę _- _cudze _
> 'bring to consciousness' - 'foreign'
> (ii) _macie_ - _Madzie_
> 'you have' - 'Magdalena' dim.pl.
> (iii) _czczy _- _dżdży_
> 'idle' - 'rain'
> 
> These sounds are also contrastive between each other, so you can find minimal pairs for any one pair of them (_kace_ - _kacze_, _tacka _- _taczka _etc.).


Ok, so that means that imperatives with ć like zapłać! are just spelled differently although many imperatives have dź at the end but still are pronounced in the same way. That has always confused me.


----------



## Panceltic

LucMorningstar666 said:


> Ok, so that means that imperatives with ć like zapłać! are just spelled differently although many imperatives have dź at the end but still are pronounced in the same way. That has always confused me.



Yes, although I wouldn’t say ‘they are spelled differently’.

A better way to think about is ‘they are pronounced the same’.

Because the underlying sounds _are_ different, they are just all devoiced in coda position.


----------



## zaffy

Panceltic said:


> What about trzy and czy?


I always pronounce them in a different way, as "trzy" pronounced as "czy" sounds uneducated to me. Yet, I believe, lots of people prononunce them the same way, children in particular.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Panceltic said:


> Yes, although I wouldn’t say ‘they are spelled differently’.
> 
> A better way to think about is ‘they are pronounced the same’.
> 
> Because the underlying sounds _are_ different, they are just all devoiced in coda position.


The "underlying sounds" are parts of the verb stem, for example "siedź" from "siedzi" and "płać"  from "płaci". The spelling with dź is etymologic, but all voiced consonants are devoiced at the end of the word.


----------

