Thread: Confused about soft vowels

Originally Posted by Marcus

Not at length, but at least somehow correctly. At least the very basic things. How they are pronounced in general (with the middle of the toungue raised towards the roof of the mouth) and Russian graphics.

Right, so you're now agreeing with precisely what I've been saying in the thread all along.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

Right, so you're now agreeing with precisely what I've been saying in the thread all along.

No. Because the very basic understanding includes the ability to write phonemic transcriptions and understanding that ля is ль+а, and лья is ль+й+а, and that saying лъя or лья instead of ля is a mistake. And also there are much fewer combinations as лья in Russian than like ля.
How do you think: is п-б distinction important in Russian? The difference between л, ль is more important than п-б, because there are no weak positions for л – ль and there are plenty for п – б.
How can you prove that L – R distinction in English is more important than л – ль or т –ть in Russian?

Originally Posted by Marcus

No. Because the very basic understanding includes the ability to write phonemic transcriptions and understanding that ля is ль+а, and лья is ль+й+а, and that saying лъя or лья instead of ля is a mistake.

But these orthographic distinctions are meaningless to anyone who does not understand the concept of palatalization in the first place! You have to understand the difference between ль and л before you can even start to understand the distinction between ля and лъя and лья.

And do you know what will happen if you include an in-depth explanation of palatalization in your beginner textbook? No one will buy it, they'll buy the one that teaches them how to stumble successfully through a simple conversation, because that's all they want to be able to do!

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

But these orthographic distinctions are meaningless to anyone who does not understand the concept of palatalization in the first place! You have to understand the difference between ль and л before you can even start to understand the distinction between ля and лъя and лья.

And do you know what will happen if you include an in-depth explanation of palatalization in your beginner textbook? No one will buy it, they'll buy the one that teaches them how to stumble successfully through a simple conversation, because that's all they want to be able to do!

But they will understand what they don't understand and will make a choice: whether to find other resourses which explain the most important Russsian phonological feature or not. And they won't even understand that they are wrong if the explanations are wrong. Because it is meaningless for a native Russian speaker that ля is lya ль is л. if anyway palatalization is mentioned regarding soft sign, why not say about palatalization before vowels, without this "y"? Or you suggest to call soft sign a meaningless letter?

Originally Posted by Marcus

But they will understand what they don't understand and will make a choice: whether to find other resourses which explain the most important Russsian phonological feature or not. And they won't even understand that they are wrong if the explanations are wrong. Because it is meaningless for a native Russian speaker that ля is lya ль is л. if anyway palatalization is mentioned regarding soft sign, why not say about palatalization before vowels, without this "y"? Or you suggest to call soft sign a meaningless letter?

Sorry mate, I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, and this is getting tiresome and circular anyway, so I'm going to leave it.

You originally asked "I wonder why many textbooks fail to explain that", and I tried to explain why. If you don't like my explanation then that's fine, feel free to invent your own one.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

Sorry mate, I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, and this is getting tiresome and circular anyway, so I'm going to leave it.

You originally asked "I wonder why many textbooks fail to explain that", and I tried to explain why. If you don't like my explanation then that's fine, feel free to invent your own one.

Ха! Я думала, что только я там ничего не понимала.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Ха! Я думала, что только я там ничего не понимала.

Я лично поняла, и думаю, что Маркус совершенно прав.
А гипотеза о стремлении производителей учебников максимально упростить материал скорее всего верна, но такой подход ведет к оболваниванию учащихся. И я, честно говоря, не верю, что человек не купит книгу, если там окажется (при прочих равных условиях) на пару страниц больше объяснений. Нонсенс.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

...And do you know what will happen if you include an in-depth explanation of palatalization in your beginner textbook? No one will buy it, they'll buy the one that teaches them how to stumble successfully through a simple conversation, because that's all they want to be able to do!

I disagree with this because: it is very easy in two pages with accompanying audio, to give a very good introduction to hard/soft consonant pairs with appropriate vowels. The student simply listens and reads the pairs. Then they are introduced to the topic right away, and even though it isn't going to fix all the problems that show up, they will have a simple early set of examples to refer back to. Even the textbook by the American Lipson does this on pages seven and eight of his introductory text ( the student has just learned Cyrillic letters) to make sure student knows that palatalization/soft consonants must be attended to. The audio is by a native Russian speaker, so no mistakes. He also includes the distinctions of the four possibilities as mentioned in the table by Боб Уайтман with various consonants. This is just the first intro to hard soft pairs, but it is still in the first few pages. Just a few pages later, are soft consonants at ends of words.


The concept is easy to package in small introductory first lessons. But must have audio.