# Самизда́т



## gentilhom

Самизда́т
Can you tell me what is the etymology of this word (сам=self?) and why it is supposedly pronounced  [самызда́т]) (according to Wiki) ?

Thank you in advance for your explanations.


----------



## twinsen

Well, this is a very interesting question. Etimology is a little bit tricky. As you pointed it out, the first half of this word implies a direct relation to something that people are doing themselves, on their own, without going to trouble checking with anyone, including people supposed to have a final say in the matter (in this case, the censors answering to the high ranks of the Communist Party). Also, it is rather uncomplicated to deduce that the second half of the word is a curtailed version of the word "издательство" (publishing house).

As to the pronounciation, that might be a little harder to explain. If you take a closer look at the first half, i.e. "сам" you might notice that the letter "М" in the end is _rigid_, so to speak. The "М" here is pronounced like in the word "moot". The opposite of _rigid_ is soft, as you might guess. The soft "М" corresponds to the word "mute". So, in the "САМ" you have a rigid ending. If you pronounce the entire word as "[самИздат]", all the effort to accentuate the rigidness of the "M" will have been in vain. In the end, you MUST say "[самЫздат]" to make the "M" sound rigid.


----------



## gentilhom

Your answer is wonderful, thank you !!!


----------



## learnerr

gentilhom said:


> Can you tell me what is the etymology of this word (сам=self?) and why it is supposedly pronounced  [самызда́т]) (according to Wiki)


This change of vowel letter happens only after some prefixes. Generally, the Russian orthography is supposed to be very much morphemic, so if the root is "изд", it well be written this way wherever it happens to be put. Prefixes make some exceptions, indeed (for example, some of them, like раз/рас, change their shape depending on the first sound of the next morpheme, usually the root).
By the way, the vowel sound in the word "самиздат" does not sound for me as full-fledged [ы]. It is not pure [и] either, though.


----------



## Maroseika

The ending -издат was typical for the Soviet publishing houses: "Политиздат", "Профиздат", госиздат (state publishing house). So this neologism imitated or parodoed official publishing houses.
In all these complex words the first part behaves like a prefix before the stems starting with и: разыскать (-ыскать < искать), безинтересный (pronunced безы...), подытожить (-ытожить < итожить).
So in all these -издат words "и" also is pronounced like ы. The reason, I think, is that softness is sense-distinctive category in Russian, so hypothetical [самиздат] with soft м and next и would presume origin from the word сами or самь.

By the way, besides самиздат, there was also тамиздат (of course, pronounced [тамыздат]) - a book published in the West for the USSR, but not allowed in the USSR.


----------



## learnerr

I personally pronounce both words ("самиздат" and "тамиздат") as half-separate ones, so the vowel sound is also in the middle, closer to [и] than to [ы]. I noticed clear [ы] only in "госиздат" among them all. No idea which pronunciation is more widespread and among whom and in what words...


----------



## Maroseika

Vowels are usually clear as mud, so better to speak about consonants. The question actually is whether "м" before "и" is hard or soft. For me it is as hard as only can be, which inevitebly means the next vowel is "ы". 
If one still doubts how hard this "м" is, I suggest to compare "в самиздате" and "сами сдайте".


----------



## learnerr

Maroseika said:


> For me it is as hard as only can be, which inevitebly means the next vowel is "ы".


Why? Do you mean that the vowel in, say, "он сам издаёт свои книги", is [ы]?


----------



## Maroseika

learnerr said:


> Why? Do you mean that the vowel in, say, "он сам издаёт свои книги", is [ы]?



Absolutely. Of course, if "сам издает" is pronounced without a pause.
[и] is just impossible after a hard consonant.


----------



## learnerr

Ah... Then, it goes into the area of the abstractions. Since the sound in the word "тыловой" is noticeably different. ;-)


----------



## Maroseika

learnerr said:


> Ah... Then, it goes into the area of the abstractions. Since the sound in the word "тыловой" is noticeably different. ;-)



Why, it is quite the same and it is not an abstraction, it's all very concrete. Quality of Russian ы depends on the softness of the following consonant, but doesn't depend on the preceding one.


----------



## gentilhom

I was wondering why the person who wrote the article on samizdat in Russian found it necessary to add a note on the pronunciation of the "i" sound. Would some Russians fail to pronounce it properly ?


----------



## Maroseika

gentilhom said:


> I was wondering why the person who wrote the article on samizdat in Russian found it necessary to add a note on the pronunciation of the "i" sound. Would some Russians fail to pronounce it properly ?



No, I believe no native needs such specification. But we hardly can answer to your "why" without exact context - who and where has written this.


----------



## ahvalj

The reason is that the Russian orthography was settled long before the first acronyms appeared, so until the very end of the 19th century only several abovementioned words (подискать, предистория) had ambiguous pronounciation. Since then, very little has been done to streamline the orthography: several words have received «ы» instead of «и» (подыскать, предыстория), but in most cases people use totally barbarous variants like «Иняз» (should be «Инъяз) or «Минюст» (should be «Минъюст»). «Самиздат» is among those: the language requires the variant «самыздат», but the orthography hesitates. As to the pronounciation: me and most people I have heard pronounce «ы» here, while I have heard «и» only from Jewish speakers at the "Radio Liberty" (e. g. Ройтман or Фиштейн), so I cannot decide whether it reflected their southern accent or simply the fact that this word appeared after they had emigrated.


----------



## learnerr

Trying to find difference between "самиздат" and non-existent "самоиздат"... Can't succeed. Need to fault my ears, probably.


----------



## ahvalj

learnerr said:


> Trying to find difference between "самиздат" and non-existent "самоиздат"... Can't succeed. Need to fault my ears, probably.


But why ever «самоиздат»? This word is one of the countless barbarous acronyms of the last 100 years, which have nothing to do with the traditional rules of the word formation.


----------



## learnerr

Just to compare the vowels – could insert anything else just as well.


----------



## learnerr

By the way, if we are to believe this, the original version of the word was "самсебяиздат". There is no reason not to believe, since the word "сам-себя-издат" is quite googlable.


----------

