Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2009-02-24 01:33, Andrew Jarrette wrote:
>
> > So the Russian character which they always say is pronounced "shch" is
> > actually not so pronounced, rather /S:/? Is it never and nowhere
> > pronounced "shch", or do some dialects have /StS/ instead of general
> > Russian /S:/? My Ukrainian girlfriend (who speaks primarily Russian)
> > pronounces it /S:/, I think, although I've read that it also has some
> > palatalization in it, similar to /S:j/ or something like that, so at
> > times I think I hear her saying /S:/ with a slight [j]-like sound.
> > But that may be merely because that is what I expect to hear, not that
> > I actually hear it. So what is the real, actual pronunciation of the
> > Russian "shch" character, throughout Russia (and Ukraine)?
>
> Russian. Ordinary Russian /S, Z/ are apico-postalveolar, or even
> slightly retroflex, with a "dark" quality. By contrast, /tS/ (without a
> voiced counterpart) is a "soft" medio-palatal [tS']; the tongue is

domed

> rather than curled back. The long fricatives /S:, Z:/ traditionally
> pattern with the latter, i.e. they are pronounced as [S':, Z':].
>
> /S:/ can be spelt <{s^c^}> [one grapheme], <sc^, zc^, z^c^>. It does
> have a variant realisation, [S'C'] (a cluster of two "soft"

consonants),

> but I don't think this pronunciation is common any longer. Word-finally
> and next to a consonant, /S:/ may be pronounced short ([S']).
>
> /Z:/ can be spelt <z^z^, zz^>. Alongside traditional [Z':], there is a
> second, increasingly common pronunciation, a long "dark" [Z:]. They may
> occur in free variation with each other.
>
> <doz^d'> 'rain' is a case apart (the spelling is unusual, perhaps
> borrowed from CS). It used to be pronounced [doS'(:)] ([doZ':-] before
> inflectional endings), but the most widespread realisation today is
> [doSt', doZd'-] (presumably a spelling-pronunciation).
>
> As far as I know, Ukrainian has /S, Z, tS, dZ/. All of them are
> allophonically palatalised when followed by /i/, and /S, Z/ are

likewise

> "soft" when doubled. I hope George Knysh will correct me if I got the
> facts wrong.
>
> Piotr
>

Thanks for the precise information, I've always wanted to know whether
what I read in books or what I hear among native speakers is actually
correct (and what it actually was that I heard).

Andrew