# し and じ: Different Transcriptions in Russian



## karuna

Anatoli said:


> Thanks, Forum user. It's a different perception in other non-English speaking areas places, though. In Russia we don't have a word for "character" meaning any linguistic symbol, we use _hieroglyph _for Chinese or Japanese non-phonetic symbols and "letter" if it's a phonetic symbol. When speaking English, "characters" are more appropriate, I agree with that.



Such usage indeed exists in Russian but still it would be more precise to talk about "кандзи" (kandzi). What I don't get is why Russians use "дз" instead of "дж" which would be closer to actual pronunciation? Also why "си" instead of "ши"?

Moderation Note:
Thread branched from here.  The topic of the current thread is different ways of transcribing し and じ in Russian.  The thread has been created in JP because of the amount of Japanese discipline required for the discussion.


----------



## Anatoli

karuna said:


> Such usage indeed exists in Russian but still it would be more precise to talk about "кандзи" (kandzi). What I don't get is why Russians use "дз" instead of "дж" which would be closer to actual pronunciation? Also why "си" instead of "ши"?


It is off-topic but I will explain as it related to Russian transliteration of Japanese. Maybe it should be a separate thread?

The term "кандзи" (kanji) is also by Russian but иероглифы ("hieroglyphs" ) as well, especially if talking about the Chinese language, not Japanese, as "ханьцзы" ("hanzi") is used much less often by Russian linguists.

As for the transliteration:
First, it's the convention to transliterate like this, any other method is considered non-standard.

Second, "Ши" and "джи" are pronounced much harder in Russian than the English "shi" or "ji" but the Russian palatalised "си" and "дзи"are much closer to Japanese し (shi) and じ (ji), so Hiroshima is Хиросима, kanji is кандзи, not Хирошима or канджи, which would be pronounced by Russians as Хирош_ы_ма and кандж_ы_. There were a lot of debates about how to transliterate Japanese in Russian.


----------



## karuna

I think that most Russian native speaker would disagree that "суси" sounds closer to original than "суши". I didn't know about official transcription system but it seems very theoretical.


----------



## Anatoli

karuna said:


> I think that most Russian native speaker would disagree that "суси" sounds closer to original than "суши". I didn't know about official transcription system but it seems very theoretical.



I belong to the "суси" group, here's why (in Russian). 

http://www.susi.ru/SusiOrSushi.html
http://www.susi.ru/SiOrShi.html
http://www.susi.ru/SiOrShi3.html

The discussion is useless, as it is the convention and neither си or ши convey the Japanese pronunciation 100%:

Here's the scale - of how these sounds compare to each other (Russian, English and Japanese):

ши - shi - し - си - si

You see that си is closer to し　than ши?



> При этом русская транслитерация оказалась даже ближе к оригиналу, чем английская, особенно по второй шкале. Косвенным доказательством этого служит тот факт, что государственная система латинской транслитерации, принятая в Японии (в отличие от т.н. "хэпберновской", принятой в англоязычных странах), использует здесь слог "*si*".


Хонсю (Honshu), Фудзияма (Fujiyama), Цусима (Thushima), Хиросима, бусидо (bushido), 

To moderators, please don't remove. Can you make a new thread instead?


----------



## karuna

I am trying to read the links provided but as far as I can gather they confirm that most people hear "ши" not "си" in Japanese words. And the oponents say that it is neither but we have to follow the tradition and that the linguists have already decided it for us. 

Before this I didn't even know that the word "суси" exists in Russian. And I certainly have never heard anyone pronouncing it like this. I personally don't care either way but as far as speaking goes I prefer to follow the mainstream pronunciation. My Russian friends have always pronounced it as "суши".


----------



## Anatoli

I would always _spell _"суси" but when _speaking _I say either "суси" or in Japanese way with a soft "ш", not "суш_ы_".

Words borrowed from Japanese into Russian via English often follow the English spelling, not the traditional transliteration: Hitachi Хитачи, Toshiba Тошиба and some other words including sushi, which can be spelled either way.

The traditional transliteration system was created by Yevgeny Polivanov:
Russian:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B8
There's *lots* of info and discussions and alternatives in the above link about the issue you raised. The Russian Wikipedia follows the Polivanov system. If this topic is new for you or is of any interest, you'll find this quite good, you can make your own conclusion about how to spell Japanese words in Russian.

English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillization_of_Japanese


----------



## karuna

The problem is that when speaking in Russian you can't really speak in Japanese way if you want to be understood by native Russian speakers. It applies to all languages, not only from Japanese to Russian. I have to substantially modify the pronunciation of my real name to make it understandable in Russian or English. 

But it is also difficult to apply sophisticated transliteration systems on the fly. People use the most natural and easiest way to adapt the sounds that have no real analogues in the second language. Therefore in Russian the transcription system is more prevalent. Polivanov's system seems to be influenced by Kunrei-shiki romanization which is evident from ち that becomes "ти" (ti). 

I find it funny that again linguists who are supposed to make it easy for people, do not take their choices into regard. I doesn't seem likely that "си" vs. "ши" controversy is due to English influence because the Russian article of the Wikipedia link  mentions that most users of alternative systems are native Russians living in Japan.


----------



## Flaminius

Anatoli said:


> Here's the scale - of how these sounds compare to each other (Russian, English and Japanese):
> 
> ши - shi - し - си - si



Hello Anatoli,
I am just wondering how I am to read this scale.  Is this somehow related to softness vs. hardness?  Perhaps you might have a hard time explaining it since it seems to be part of every Russian speaker's linguistic sense.  Alas, however, I never understood that distinction.


----------



## Anatoli

Thanks Flaminius for splitting the thread 

I am sure Russians in Japan know how to pronounce Japanese words containing し, じ　or ち but they also know well how these are words are usually romanised in English - shi, ji, or chi. They also know that such English combinations are transcribed as ши, джи чи in Russian, hence the _English _influence. When designing Polivanov system, _the Russian _pronunciation and spelling rules were taking into account, not the English.

The choice of specific letters was based on which letters render the pronunciation of another the closest (you can never get 100%) and the spelling rules. You can't tell everyone to say Хиро_ш'и_ма with a soft "ш", not as  Хиро_шы_ма.
In any case, if you stick to conventions,  you avoid confusions.

Person with a knowledge of another language can pronounce its words better, no matter what symbols are used in the second language to represent those sounds.

This discussion is similar to the Chinese Pinyin *shi - xi, chi - qi, zhi - ji* controversy, about the usage of Roman letters representing quite different sounds.


----------



## karuna

They say that reason for Polivanov's system is that it is better understandable by native Japanese speakers. That may be true yet I wonder why it is important, considering that mutual recognition of different sounds may not be symmetric.

The purpose of transcription is not to teach the exact pronunciation of foreign language but to identify unknown words. Its intended users probably usually couldn't care less about Japanese language and how it is properly pronounced. In this aspect it really doesn't matter what kind of transcription system is used as long as it is consistent. Yet, when they happen to hear the original word pronounced they are probably surprised to discover that many words sound completely different from their transcribed forms. I started to learn Japanese from Pimsleur audio courses without seeing any written words, including in romaji. I don't know how good is my pronunciation but in either case I would have never guessed that "сятё" is the transcription of 社長. That's where I think the system fails. I could have recognized "шачо", however. 

It's not the "ш" that is the problem in the "ши (шы)", isn't it? It is "ы" instead of "и". I have noticed that the degradation of consonant sounds are usually tolerated but the improper use "ы" instead of "и" is a big faux pas.


----------



## Anatoli

> I don't know how good is my pronunciation but in either case I would have never guessed that "сятё" is the transcription of 社長. That's where I think the system fails. I could have recognized "шачо", however.


It's all the matter of habits and exposure, I am the reverse, "шачо" is quite weird to me but "сятё:" is OK. I started learning Japanese with Polivanov's transcription before moving to English speaking sources.

If we change Хонсю (Honshu) to Хоншю, it eventually will be pronounced as Хоншу, which is totally wrong.

I disagree with you. My main argument was that "ся" is MUCH closer than "ша" to Japanese "しゃ" and although it is rendered as "sha" in English and Romaji, to me "ша" is just wrong in this case.

Unfortunately, it may happen that we will have multiplying transliterations, which will confuse a lot of people and that's why Russian textbooks increasingly switch to Romaji because it has become hard to maintain the standards (IMHO, literacy in general has dropped in Russia).


----------



## karuna

I still don't understand in which way "ся" is closer than "ша" Japanese "しゃ". To me it seems the opposite. Maybe it may be seem closer to a Japanese ear but to me it doesn't matter how softly I pronounce "ся" there is some quality of sound besides its softness that always clearly distinguishes с from ш. Also ся very rarely can be found in the beginning of a Russian word so euphony factors can play some role too. Сюсюкание doesn't sound so much desirable in Russian.


----------



## tkekte

Polivanov's transcription is... let's say... a word starting with d, meaning "not very bright". 

Try saying "сяберимасьта" or "тикусё" to a japanese person, and see how much they understand. Rendering し as си is at least somewhat acceptable.
But ちゃ as тя? Nobody will understand that. ち is obviously a soft palatal affricate, not a palatalized stop, like russian ть.

し and ち could be compared to Polish _si_ and _ci_ perhaps. 
(Curiously enough, when transliterating Polish, we have a reverse picture... ш is used for ś and ч is used for ć... even though they are etymologically related to сь and ть. Go figure. )


----------



## Anatoli

Here's a quote describing the experiment proving, which method of the Russian transliteration is the most accurate for rendering pronunciation:


> 2) С другой стороны, вопрос степени соответствия записи звучанию актуален, как академический вопрос. Его актуальность связана с тем, что многие утверждают, что, дескать, «ща», «щи» (или «ша», «ши») ближе к японскому звучанию, чем «ся» и «си», «чу» и «чо», чем «тю» и «тё», «джу» и «джо», чем «дзю» и «дзё» и т. п. /Для [] скажу, что впервые я это самобытное утверждение услышал от [] в питерском университете, настаивавшей на правильности «чу» и «джу». Несмотря на застойные годы, девушка уже тогда горела желанием что-нибудь реформировать…/
> Так вот, несколько лет назад «группа товарищей» провела незамысловатый эксперимент с целью проверить, насколько та или иная запись близка к реальному произношению в японском языке. Для этого мы:
> взяли первую попавшуюся под руку страницу текста на японском языке; записали ее по-русски, соответственно, в разных вариантах – в соответствии с правилом Поливанова и в соответствии с «неканоническими Евангелиями»; попросили человека, не знающего японский, зачитать эти тексты на кассету; давали эту кассету произвольным японцам и просили их определить услышанные на слух слова; сравнили результаты между собой.
> Результат: транслитерация по Поливанову победила во всех без исключения номинациях, в некоторых – с огромных отрывом. Особенно запомнилось, что слово «сися» (支社, филиал компании) было узнано всеми японцами, «щища» - примерно половиной из них, а со словом «шиша» никто ни шиша не понял.
> 
> Вывод: правило Поливанова не только правило, которое следует соблюдать, оно еще и точнее других способов соответствует фонетике японского языка.





> Сюсюкание doesn't sound so much desirable in Russian.


I am sorry but this is not a very linguistic comment  Foreign words are sometimes adjusted, though to sound better in the target language but this is not a rule.

As it is becoming time-consuming, I would like to refer you to the biggest Russian language linguistic forum frequented by experts in Japanese and other East Asian languages. 

http://polusharie.com/index.php/topic,65706.0.html
Go to "Начало" and select a topic or post your questions.


> し and ち could be compared to Polish _si_ and _ci_ perhaps.
> (Curiously enough, when transliterating Polish, we have a reverse picture... ш is used for ś and ч is used for ć... even though they are etymologically related to сь and ть. Go figure. )


I thought about this too. But it is a big mistake to mix Polish si and shy, ci and chy, zi and ży, dzi and dży but in he Russian transliteration you have a choice to use "си" for "si", which would help to get rid of this ambiguity. I actually used textbooks/ phrasebooks following this pattern with some pronunciation notes.

As I mentioned above Russian transliteration of Chinese faces even more problems, note that combination XI (x in Pinyin stands for a voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative) (IMHO, identical to the Japanese し) is transliterated as СИ, SHI as ШИ and SI as СЫ.

I actually agree that ч is better suited for ち, or renders the sound more correctly (phonetically), which is always palatalised in Russian but if we reform Polivanov system, then we would probably need to use Ю, Я and Ё after it, to make sure the sounds are really palatalised. Тю:гоку -> Чю:гоку (Chugoku). This is sometimes debated but changing it would cause confusion.


----------



## karuna

The transcription system is not meant for Japanese to understand, it is needed only to Russian speakers among themselves. And how come that linguists should not care about euphony in their own native language? Sorry, but language simply works that way and to ignore that aspect is not professional. For example, no self-respecting translator would transcribe a Chinese name as three ominous Russian letters h-u-i .  This is an extreme example, but still the way how the name sounds can have a big impact on the first impression and I can understand Japanese film and anime translators not being very satisfied with the academic system.

I think that it is a mistake to take one system and try to use it simultaneously for both teaching purposes and literary needs. These are clearly different areas that should be separated.


----------



## Anatoli

As I said, there is usually no rule for changing words to please a public ear or  making words sound better. To me these syllables sound just fine and close to Japanese, which is more important. I don't see the need to adjust Japanese words in Russian to English spelling or pronunciation.

This special situation you describe (because of the extremely obscene meaning of HUI syllable) is described and there IS a rule for it for public use only (maps, references, books), not for textbooks, dictionaries or any linguistic material. It is an exception, not a rule.



> ...Гласный У поле согласного Х и с последующим Й в научных изданих по Китаю, словарях и учебной литературе может сохраняться, а в массовых изданиях заменяется на УЭ, в географических названиях также принято написание через О...


Hence: Аньхой, Хуэй, etc.

The linguists are generally above such things as foreign words sounding obscene in a native language but for the general public sometimes an allowance is made. For the same purpose some product  names are renamed/modified when it is promoted in another country. IMHO, if there were no modifications, people would get used to such words and wouldn't pay that much attention to such similarities but that's my opinion only.

This system to transcribe Chinese was created by Pyotr Kafarov (aka Palladiy), it's generally known as Palladiy system:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillization_of_Chinese_from_Pinyin



> Сюсюкание doesn't sound so much desirable in Russian.


About "сюсюканье" - well, that's what Japanese sounds like and I like the sound of it, if you don't like, I can't help it - I don't see the need for adjusting the Russian transliteration.

守株 (しゅしゅ) is pronounced more like "сюсю", not "шушу" and 支社 (ししゃ) sounds closer to "сися", not "шиша"  The difference between "しゅ" and "сю" is that the former is alveolar and the latter is post-alveolar but they are both palatalised voiceless sibilants and otherwise very similar in quality.

-- 
EDIT:
To Karuna,
As this is a mainly English speaking forum, if you are not satisfied with my answer, or you wish to express your feelings, you'd be better off introducing yourself to the Russian speaking Japanese experts and ask them. I will probably leave this topic as there is not much value I can add to this discussion and no-one else seems to be interested (not surprisingly).


----------



## Duya

Flaminius said:


> Hello Anatoli,
> I am just wondering how I am to read this scale.  Is this somehow related to softness vs. hardness?  Perhaps you might have a hard time explaining it since it seems to be part of every Russian speaker's linguistic sense.  Alas, however, I never understood that distinction.



Here's an (approximate) IPA transcription, with links to Wikipedia articles where appropriate -- most of them also have sound samples.

ши /ʂɪ/
shi /ʃi/ 
し /ɕi/ 
си /sʲi/ 
si /si/


----------



## Anatoli

Duya said:


> Here's an (approximate) IPA transcription, with links to Wikipedia articles where appropriate -- most of them also have sound samples.
> 
> ши /ʂɪ/
> shi /ʃi/
> し /ɕi/
> си /sʲi/
> si /si/



Sorry, I missed Flaminius's question, note that Russian  "ш" is hard and the "и" is pronounced as "ы" when it follows ш.
ши /ʂɨ/

Thanks, Duya.I couldn't find the palatalised version sample of си /sʲi/ though to compare with  し.


----------



## palomnik

Polivanov's transliteration is not just due to the vagaries of _c_ vs. _ш_; it also has to do with phonemic uniformity. The “s” sound in しis an allophone of the “s” sound in さ, so therefore they are written with the same symbol in Russian. Since neither one sounds exactly like Russian ш, it shouldn’t make any difference. Actually, I wish that the standard English transliteration held to the same standard; it would be more precise than the one we currently use.

Similar problems come up with Chinese transliterations. Does it make any sense to translate Chinese final “ŋ” as _н_ and final “n” as _нь_? Neither is a good description of the sound involved, but since Russian has no ŋ sound there really isn’t much choice.


----------

