Polish affords two fricative-affricate possibilities:

szcz and ść

IIRC, <szcz> corresponds (is cognate with) Eastern Slavic
(Russian, Belorussian,etc.) "shch" (щ): Pol. jeszcze "yet" Rus. yeshche
(еще) "yet"...
...while ść would correspond/be cognate with "st'", e.g. Pol.
możność "possibility" : Rus. (voz)mozhnost' (возможность); Pol. kość
"bone" : Rus. kost' (кость), etc.

ś usually has developed from a palatalized *s- (viz. *s'-) in
earlier Polish/Slavic... as Polish ć, ń, ź also have come from
palatalized *ts- (*ts'), *n- (*n'), and *z- (*z')...

a counter example would be Pol. *szczęś*liwy vs. Cz. *šťas*tný,
where the palatalized-t in Czech is -cz- in Polish....
the Russian counterpart, however, *schas*tlivïy (*счаст*ливый)
provides further elucidation - the Czech and Polish onsets (szcz-/šť-)
are examples of regressive palatal assimilation, where Czech has lost
most palatalization (možnost, kost (cf. above) and disallows šč initial
onsets, allowing for šť- only.

if I have the time, I'll see if I can get cognates for Russian щ
in Pol/Ukr/Cz/etc...

cheers,
-patrick




R.C. Bakhuizen van den Brink [Rein] wrote:

>I don't think so.
>
>"Juszczenko" or the "szcz" in Polish as in Szczecin [Stettin]
>
>groetjes, Rein
>
>On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>
>>SHCHA should be transliterated by s-acute if you
>>want a one-to-one glyph that reflects the actual
>>phonetics. Cf Polish s-ş vs sz.
>>--
>>Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
>>
>>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]