From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 44794
Date: 2006-05-30
On 2006-05-30 03:23, Andrew Jarrette wrote:
> Just as a by-the-way sideline to all the discussion about trzymac', I
> would like to ask any Pole on cybalist (presumably Piotr), what is
> the actual pronunciation of y in Polish? The reason I ask this is
> because many Polish-English dictionaries, at least those published by
> English publishers, assert that Polish y is pronounced /I/ and is the
> same as English /I/ as in bit. Is that true? Or is it more like the
> Russian y, an unrounded high back or central vowel (I presume, based
> on what I've read, not what I've heard)?
Well, even English /I/ varies a lot from dialect to dialect. It isn't
the same thing, in, say, General American, Scottish English (retracted
and lowered), or Australian (raised), though our phonetic transcriptions
usually ignore such nuances. Polish <y> is mid-high and central --
actually in the front half of the central zone, but not as front as
typical realisations of English /I/. You can imagine it as intermediate
between the <kit> vowel and Russian <y>. Though phonetically frontish,
it counts as [+back] in Polish phonology.
> I hate it when poor-quality
> but readily-available language reference books oversimplify or
> misrepresent foreign pronunciation (or foreign grammar, for that
> matter). Also, why does trzymac' have y and not i? Is this a
> development after rz?
Yes. Inherited *i was retracted in Old Polish when it followed /s^/,
/c^/, /c/ and their voiced counterparts, as well as /r^/, as those
consonants lost their palatal component. As a result, the retracted
allophone merged with inherited *y. At the time /r^/ (from palatalised
*r) was still a trilled fricative, as in Modern Czech, but it has merged
with /z^/ in Modern Polish. In some contexts, including the position
after a voiceless somorants, it has been devoiced to /s^/.
Interestingly, old /tr^/ (as in <trzymac'>) has become /ts^/, which is a
cluster of two consonants, not a single affricate segment (it can be
pronounced [c^s^], but still contrasts with /c^/), so that e.g. <czysta>
'clean, pure (f.)' and <trzysta> '300' constitute a minimal pair. In
some regional varieties of Polish the two have fallen together, to be
sure, but the distinction is an important one in the standard accent --
it's a kind of shibboleth in Poland.
> While I'm at it (and I apologize if I am asking too many questions
> that might not be appropriate for the subject matter of this group),
> I've always wanted to know what the difference in articulation is
> between Polish /cz/, /sz/, /z*/* *and Polish /ci/+vowel, /si/+vowel,
> and /zi/+vowel.
The members of the latter series are spelt <c', s', z', dz'>
word-finally and before consonants, <ci, si, zi, dzi> before vowels. The
articulatory difference between the <sz> and <s'> series is more or less
the same as between <sh> and <x> in Chinese. Polish <sz> is a flat
postalveolar fricative, to use Ladefoged & Maddieson's terminology. L&M
decribe it as laminal, but the position of the tip of the tongue is
hardly critical. My own pronunciation, for example, tends to be apical.
The difference between this fricative and English "palatoalveolar" <sh>
consists in the shape of the body of the tongue -- flat in Polish and
"domed" in English. Polish <s'> is laminal (articulated with the blade
of the tongue rather than the tip), palatalised (the whole body of the
tongue is raised towards the hard palate) and postalveolar.
Impressionistically, <s'> is "more palatal" than English <sh> (just as
<sz> is "less palatal"). The term "alveopalatal" is often used to
characterise this articulation.
> When I had the opportunity to ask this of a Polish
> immigrant to Canada I became acquainted with, she pronounced /ci/,
> /si/, /zi/ with a following /i/ vowel while pronouncing /cz/, /sz/,
> /z*/ without a vowel. Thus I did not have contrasting pairs and the
> difference was not plain to me, since the most salient difference
> was the presence of /i/ in the one series, and its absence in the
> other, as this lady pronounced them.
The both occur prevocalically as well as preconsonantally. Next time you
meet a Pole, try minimal pairs like <kosz> 'basket', <kos'> 'mow
(imperative)'.
Piotr
I could have asked her to
> clarify, but I felt that I would be becoming too annoying, so I
> dropped the issue. But perhaps one of you (Piotr?) could explain in
> words the difference in pronunciation between these two series? I
> understand if you feel it is outside the interests of this group.