Talk:Polish phonology

Palatal consonants lacking
Why aren't palatal B and P listed as Polish phonemes? They form relevant minimal pairs, for example pasek - piasek, bały - biały. They are not a sequence of non palatalized p and b plus a /j/. 51.175.195.49 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends on analysis. See Polish phonology. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it does not depend on analysis, stop annoying me with your ignorance. Of course they are sequences of a consonant followed by a /j/, lol. Look up X-ray tests, a semivowel can clearly be heard in such cases. Palatalisation is NOT phonemic in Polish, it's only allophonic just as in English. "biały" is not pronounced /ˈbʲa.wɨ/ (try to pronounce the word if you're a native speaker, its duration is longer than in the case of /ˈba.wɨ/ which shouldn't happen if /b/ was JUST palatalised) but [ˈbʲja.wɨ], with the palatalisation of /b/ coming from the following /j/, hence it's just allophonic. Besides, it's a very slight kind of palatalisation, much much much weaker than in Russian but similar to English (as in the word "beak" which in a narrow transcription would be represented as [ˈbʲiːk]). Shumkichi (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the notion that there might be palatalized labial phonemes in Polish is such an annoyance to you, then you might consider looking into editing the section that I pointed to, since I'm merely sharing what the article says. It would probably be worthwhile exercise to share your knowledge and the relevant sources that back up your claims rather than be rude in the talk page. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It does. What he means is phonemic analysis, not narrow phonetic transcription. The pronunciation can be represented in phonemic transcription as  (if you think that the palatalization of  is allophonic) or  (if you think that the palatal glide after  is allophonic) but not, which is not a valid phonemic transcription (at least not in the analyses I'm aware of). EDIT: Then there's also the analysis , in which  is treated as an allophone of  - but nobody endorses it anymore, AFAIK.
 * Even Russian белый features a palatal glide before, it's just that it's shorter/weaker than the  phoneme. This doesn't mean that the analysis  is wrong in Polish - as John Wells puts it, There is not some great phoneme system in the sky from which particular languages select their phonemes, with one IPA symbol always standing for the same thing (source: ). Polish  stands for something closer to  in comparison with its Russian counterpart (though the latter also features a palatal glide, but not as long/strong as the  phoneme. You could transcribe Russian  as  or something else and then clarify its phonetic features (that just means length - anything else is pretty much self-evident) in prose, as long as the  phoneme is assigned a separate symbol. This is because Russian contrasts  with , believe it or not). The Russian mid back vowel is also closer and considerably more diphthongal/triphthongal in comparison with the Polish , making it sound almost like Polish ło or even łoa, and yet its not uncommon to see both written with ⟨o⟩. I think it's pretty obvious that the word co isn't pronounced  in Polish, in contrast with Russian что, which is most commonly , though that probably depends to a certain degree on the sentence stress. To add to the confusion, in some transcriptions of Dutch and American English, ⟨o⟩ stands for.
 * English beak is not pronounced unless you have a (slight) Slavic accent. English doesn't have allophonic palatalization of stops, except in contact with  and then only in the case of the alveolars (and  [a bilabial nasal stop], according to The Phonetics of English and Dutch). Sol505000 (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: on the other hand, writing (where the capital letter $⟨c⟩$ stands for any consonant apart from the (alveolo-)palatals etc.) does cause some odd differences in phonemic analysis that are counter-intuitive to the natives. Take rozjebać and rozpierdolić (both meaning 'to fuck sth up'), for instance. The former is presumably  (because jebać 'to fuck' alone is  and because the only trace of  before  is the consonant, as in ziemia  'soil', historically  or something like that), whereas rozpierdolić is  (because pierdolić 'to fuck' alone is ). I assume maximal syllable onset (so , rather than the morphologically transparent ) and that  is by definition 'soft' in this analysis, and any palatalization of it is phonetic (the historical hard l is the contemporary ). But phonetically, there is no difference between the alleged palatal approximant in  in rozjebać and the alleged palatalization of the preceding consonant in  in rozpierdolić - both are actually , or  if you prefer a narrower transcription: . I know that it's not the nicest example but it's perfect for the job - you can easily remember it. I think that, if possible, phonemic transcription should be as accessible to the natives (and advanced L2 speakers) as possible. You shouldn't have to stop and think "hmm... is this  or ?" when it literally doesn't matter in Polish. It's not an actual phonemic contrast.
 * I think that the analysis is by analogy with either Russian (the predominant foreign language in Poland in the latter half of the 20th century) or maybe even Lithuanian. In the latter, the orthographic $⟨CiV⟩$ actually does stand for a palatalized consonant. Or maybe because Polish used to feature actual palatalized consonants, such as the aforementioned  which correspond to the modern . This is why we have alternations such as mata  'a mat' vs. na macie  'on a mat'. I think that misspellings such as mjasto for miasto 'city' also contributed to the analysis  (so ), rather than  (so ), as the latter transcription would be basically the same as the misspelling mjasto (which, personally, I have nothing against, it's how the word should be spelled given how it's pronounced - but that's just me), save for the final vowel (often written with a bare $⟨o⟩$ anyway - see above). In that case,  would be an attempt to make the IPA transcriptions of Polish look "educated", or even to justify the orthographic distinction between $⟨CjV⟩$ and $⟨CiV⟩$.
 * I think that the Masurian variant mniasto (cf. Czech město ) also points to the fact that what precedes  is a consonant - especially due to the fact that it can be reduced all the way to  niasto!
 * Ah yes, then there's also the issue of the sixth vowel, or . Those who think that it is an allophone of will automatically give  etc. a phonemic status due to loanwords such as Tico  'Tico' (a car model) and sinus  'sine', which are pronounced with palatalized dentals, rather than the native alveolo-palatals (in that aspect, Polish is unlike Brazilian Portuguese). But most analyses treat Polish as possessing a six vowel system, in which  occupies the close central position, right in-between the front  and the back  (even though that is at odds with the phonetics of Polish, as natives tend to perceive  as something between  and  (which can be as high and/or as central as, not necessarily resulting in a complete merger), which suggests that Polish has at least three if not four contrastive degrees of openness among the front/central vowels, which probably should be grouped together).
 * Personally, I see no reason to differentiate between the palatal elements in the syllable onsets of zjeść 'to eat' (transitive) (or zjeb  'fucking retard', if you want something related to the former examples :P) and biały  'white' (rather than ). It's an orthography-influenced distinction that shouldn't be transcribed in IPA. Sol505000 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider the following pairs in their prescriptive pronunciation (not all speakers maintain the distinction, perhaps only a small minority, in part because the spelling reform of 1936 means there is no way to show it in spelling before any vowel other than i):
 * (Widzę) lamie. / (Siedzę na) lamie.
 * (Rozpoznaję) ksenofobię. / (Używam sobie na) ksenofobie.
 * (Czytam) Utopię. / (Ja go chyba zaraz) utopię.
 * (Opisuję) Batawię. / (Opowiadam o pewnym) Batawie.
 * (Studiuję) filozofię. / (Rozmyślam o pewnym) filozofie.
 * In all these examples the first word ends (or used to end) in what a Russian would spell -ье, the second one -- -е (the vowel part of the example is of course problematic because of vowel reduction, the ь part is important).
 * (It's even more pronounced with -ii and -i (e.g. utopii -- -ьи́/ utopi -- -и́), but in this case the hypercorrection works the other way round (you can end up with Chylonii for Chyloni, konopii for konopi etc.).
 * How would you transcribe it? If "filozofie" is supposed to be /filɔˈzɔfjɛ/, then "filozofię" has to be something like /filɔˈzɔfi̯jɛ/, with non-syllabic i. It can't be /filɔˈzɔfijɛ/, that would be spelt "filozofije" (an archaism nowadays). Now, IPA is supposed to be a phonemic rather than phonetic alphabet -- good luck trying to convince anyone (even the few people who cling to the above distinction) that 1) there's an /i̯/ phoneme in Polish, 2) no, it's not the same thing as /j/. It's easier to transcribe the former as /fʲilɔˈzɔfʲɛ/, and the latter as /fʲilɔˈzɔfʲjɛ/. 89.64.69.33 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sawicka in Fonologia w: Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego, Fonetyka i Fonologia. p.145 tackles this phenomenon as follows:
 * "Z. Stieber zachowując miękkie fonemy wargowe, powoływał sie na istnienie funkcjonalnej różnicy między sekwencjami typu */PʲV/ i /PjV/ (Stieber 1966, s. 108). Taką różnicę widział on na przykład między */mʲV/ i */mjV/ w np. ziemia i armia (*/#ʑɛmʲɑ#/ ale */#ɑrmjɑ#). Jednakże realizacja ostatniej sylaby w obu przypadkach jest w kulturalnej polszczyźnie identyczna. Jest to przykład czysto psychologicznego rozróżnienia, które w danym wypadku wzmacniane jest różnicą ortograficzna w przypadkach zależnych, por. armii [ɑrmʲi] vs ziemi [ʑemʲi]. U pewnej grupy osób występuje świadomość odrębności między ciągiem /PjV/, a hipotetycznym */PʲV/. Zróżnicowanie idzie tu po linii wyraz obcy vs wyraz rodzimy. Otóż w wyrazach rodzimych graficzna grupa PiV jest realizowana wyłącznie jako [PʲjV], np. biorę [bʲjɵrɛɯ̯̃], robię [rɔbʲjeɯ̯̃], podczas gdy w wyrazach obcych, obok wymienionej, zdarza się realizacja [PʲijV], np. biologia [bʲjɵlɔɟja] i [bʲijɵlɔɟja]. Osoby, które wymawiają w ten sposób, mają w tych wyrazach inną reprezentację fonologiczną: 1. w wyrazach rodzimych /PjV/ o obligatoryjnej realizacji [PʲjV] (według interpretacji starszej w miękkimi labialnymi fonemami: /PʲV/), 2. w wyrazach obcych /PiV/ o realizacji [PʲijV] zob. w rozdz. 3.1 (według starszej interpretacji /PʲjV/)."
 * "In retaining soft labial phonemes, Z. Stieber pointed out the existence of a functional difference between sequences of the type */ PʲV / and / PjV / (Stieber 1966, p. 108). He saw such a difference between */ mʲV / and */ mjV / e.g. in ziemia and armia (*/#ʑɛmʲɑ#/ but */#ɑrmjɑ#). However, the realization of the last syllable in both cases is identical in the cultural Polish language. This is an example of a purely psychological distinction, which in a given case is reinforced by a spelling difference in dependent cases, cf. armii [ɑrmʲi] vs ziemi [ʑemʲi]. A certain group of people is aware of the difference between the sequence /PjV/ and the hypothetical */PʲV/. Differentiation goes along the lines of the foreign word versus the native word. In native words, the grapheme PiV is realized only as [PʲjV], e.g. biorę [bʲjɵrɛɯ̯̃], robię [rɔbʲjeɯ̯̃], while in foreign words in can be realzied as [PʲijV] as well, e.g. biology [bʲjɵlɔɟja] and [bʲijɵlɔɟja]. People who pronounce them this way have a different phonological representation in these words: 1. in native words /PjV/ with obligatory realization [PʲjV] (according to the older interpretation with soft labial phonemes: /PʲV/), 2. in foreign words /PiV/ realized as [PʲijV] see. in chapter 3.1 (according to the older interpretation /PʲjV/)."
 * While the pronunciation of [PʲijV] is definitely dated now and is something like [Pʲj̆V] vs[PʲjV] (could be transcribed as well [PʲjV] vs [PʲjˑV], or even [PʲV] vs [PʲjV]), the system of those who still feel the difference can be accommodated within Sawicka's phonemicization without a need of extra phonemes. She includes in her list of phonemes a 'weak juncture' phoneme (noted below with a plus juncture /+/ rather than with her original /#̯/) to explain difference between e.g. objętość /#ɔb+jɛntɔɕt͡ɕ#/ [ɔbjentɔɕt͡ɕ] or [ɔbʲjentɔɕt͡ɕ] vs obiecać /#ɔbjɛt͡sɑt͡ɕ#/ [ɔbʲjet͡sɑt͡ɕ]. The same juncture can be used to explain '(Czytam) Utopię.' vs '(Ja go chyba zaraz) utopię.' as /#utɔp+jɛ(w̃)#/ vs /#utɔpjɛ(w̃)#/. This juncture is reinforced by a syllable break so alternatively /ɔb.jɛntɔɕt͡ɕ/ vs /ɔ.bjɛt͡sɑt͡ɕ/, /utɔp.jɛ(w̃)/ vs /utɔ.pjɛ(w̃)/. A similar solution is applied in English to differentiate between a name  vs. an aim, night rate  vs. nitrate  without resorting to claims of additional phonemes. Qerez (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "In retaining soft labial phonemes, Z. Stieber pointed out the existence of a functional difference between sequences of the type */ PʲV / and / PjV / (Stieber 1966, p. 108). He saw such a difference between */ mʲV / and */ mjV / e.g. in ziemia and armia (*/#ʑɛmʲɑ#/ but */#ɑrmjɑ#). However, the realization of the last syllable in both cases is identical in the cultural Polish language. This is an example of a purely psychological distinction, which in a given case is reinforced by a spelling difference in dependent cases, cf. armii [ɑrmʲi] vs ziemi [ʑemʲi]. A certain group of people is aware of the difference between the sequence /PjV/ and the hypothetical */PʲV/. Differentiation goes along the lines of the foreign word versus the native word. In native words, the grapheme PiV is realized only as [PʲjV], e.g. biorę [bʲjɵrɛɯ̯̃], robię [rɔbʲjeɯ̯̃], while in foreign words in can be realzied as [PʲijV] as well, e.g. biology [bʲjɵlɔɟja] and [bʲijɵlɔɟja]. People who pronounce them this way have a different phonological representation in these words: 1. in native words /PjV/ with obligatory realization [PʲjV] (according to the older interpretation with soft labial phonemes: /PʲV/), 2. in foreign words /PiV/ realized as [PʲijV] see. in chapter 3.1 (according to the older interpretation /PʲjV/)."
 * While the pronunciation of [PʲijV] is definitely dated now and is something like [Pʲj̆V] vs[PʲjV] (could be transcribed as well [PʲjV] vs [PʲjˑV], or even [PʲV] vs [PʲjV]), the system of those who still feel the difference can be accommodated within Sawicka's phonemicization without a need of extra phonemes. She includes in her list of phonemes a 'weak juncture' phoneme (noted below with a plus juncture /+/ rather than with her original /#̯/) to explain difference between e.g. objętość /#ɔb+jɛntɔɕt͡ɕ#/ [ɔbjentɔɕt͡ɕ] or [ɔbʲjentɔɕt͡ɕ] vs obiecać /#ɔbjɛt͡sɑt͡ɕ#/ [ɔbʲjet͡sɑt͡ɕ]. The same juncture can be used to explain '(Czytam) Utopię.' vs '(Ja go chyba zaraz) utopię.' as /#utɔp+jɛ(w̃)#/ vs /#utɔpjɛ(w̃)#/. This juncture is reinforced by a syllable break so alternatively /ɔb.jɛntɔɕt͡ɕ/ vs /ɔ.bjɛt͡sɑt͡ɕ/, /utɔp.jɛ(w̃)/ vs /utɔ.pjɛ(w̃)/. A similar solution is applied in English to differentiate between a name  vs. an aim, night rate  vs. nitrate  without resorting to claims of additional phonemes. Qerez (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Actual Polish pronunciation

 * y is close mid
 * cz, dż, sz, ż are post-alevolar, not retroflex; retroflex pronunciation is considered as speech defect
 * c, dz, cz, dż, ć, dź are stop consonants
 * and c, cz, ć pronunciation Has nothing to do with t

bananowiec 10:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing analysis of nasals
"Recent sources present for modern Polish a vowel system without nasal vowel phonemes, including only the aforementioned six oral vowels." Is that because the pronunciation of these sounds changed in the 20th century? Or did this change occur much earlier, and wasn't it until recently that linguists started to acknowledge it? Steinbach (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Antepenultimate stress
> Some loanwords, particularly from classical languages, have the stress on the antepenultimate (third-last) syllable. For example, fizyka (/ˈfizɨka/) ('physics') is stressed on the first syllable. That may lead to a rare phenomenon of minimal pairs differing only in stress placement: muzyka /ˈmuzɨka/ 'music' vs. muzyka /muˈzɨka/ – genitive singular of muzyk 'musician'. When further syllables are added at the end of such words through suffixation, the stress normally becomes regular: uniwersytet (/uɲiˈvɛrsɨtɛt/, 'university') has irregular stress on the third (or antepenultimate) syllable, but the genitive uniwersytetu (/uɲivɛrsɨˈtɛtu/) and derived adjective uniwersytecki (/uɲivɛrsɨˈtɛt͡ski/) have regular stress on the penultimate syllables. Over time, loanwords tend to become nativized to have a penultimate stress.

This is just plain incorrect in contemporary speech. It's very outdated. Pronounciations like /ˈfizɨka/ and /ˈmuzɨka/ are pretty much unheard of, and for many generations now.

"Over time, loanwords tend to become nativized to have a penultimate stress" is how you could describe this process a century ago, the process is complete now. 90.254.230.66 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Number of palatalizations
"four Proto-Slavic palatalizations and two further palatalizations that took place in Polish and Belarusian."

So six palatalizations in total? It would be nice to know which source was used for this sentence. Most places I can find mention three Proto-Slavic palatalizations — two regressive palatalizations and the progressive palatalization) — not four. In Old Polish it says that the further palatalization that took place in Polish is sometimes called the "fourth Slavic palatalization". Even then, what are the two remaining palatalzations that took place in Polish and Belarussian? SKOgoras (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)