3 ms·

Neither :). It’s a pretty hard word for people outside Poland. I would say it’s pronounced more like “Kosh-choosh-kuh”. It still won’t be perfect, but close eno

by M4v3R 7y ago

Neither :). It’s a pretty hard word for people outside Poland. I would say it’s pronounced more like “Kosh-choosh-kuh”. It still won’t be perfect, but close enough.

foobarian 7y ago
These kind of shenanigans are exactly why Mr. Karadžić [1] pushed for an orthographic alphabet in Serbia, and why it quickly got adopted by neighbors as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuk_Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuk_Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87
- sverige 7y ago
  The Cyrillic alphabet is even simpler and clearer, but apparently too orthodox for Catholics.
  - foobarian 7y ago
    I blame it on Methodius. He tried to get the Catholics to use the Glagolitic but in the end it didn't take and the vacuum got filled with Latin.
    - bogomipz 7y ago
      Wasn't it one of Methodius' students that created Cyrillic though? When and why was there a void? Maybe I am misunderstanding you comment though?
  - jwieczorek 7y ago
    Indeed, it's one of the peculiarities of the Polish language that it has Slavic phonetics but a Latin alphabet. Hence why typically Slavic phonemes, which in Cyrillic are represented by single letters (such as sh = ш), in Polish get represented with two (sz), and why you need a double-letter context to know how to pronounce a given sequence of characters. Unfortunately, back in the 10th century, the choice of an alphabet was essentially a pure consequence of whom the first ruler of Poland would adopt Christianity from: the Western part of the Church (this was before the official Schism) or the Rus (Ruthenia). The Rus had a liturgy in Old Church Slavonic, and for the liturgical books they adopted an alphabet, the Glagolitic (a predecessor to the Cyrillic), which was more suitable for the phonetics of the language (and, indeed, of Slavic languages in general). Poland adopted the Latin liturgy and the alphabet was part of the “package”.

by M4v3R 7y ago

Neither :). It’s a pretty hard word for people outside Poland. I would say it’s pronounced more like “Kosh-choosh-kuh”. It still won’t be perfect, but close enough.

foobarian 7y ago

These kind of shenanigans are exactly why Mr. Karadžić [1] pushed for an orthographic alphabet in Serbia, and why it quickly got adopted by neighbors as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuk_Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuk_Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87

sverige 7y ago
The Cyrillic alphabet is even simpler and clearer, but apparently too orthodox for Catholics.
- foobarian 7y ago
  I blame it on Methodius. He tried to get the Catholics to use the Glagolitic but in the end it didn't take and the vacuum got filled with Latin.
  - bogomipz 7y ago
    Wasn't it one of Methodius' students that created Cyrillic though? When and why was there a void? Maybe I am misunderstanding you comment though?
- jwieczorek 7y ago
  Indeed, it's one of the peculiarities of the Polish language that it has Slavic phonetics but a Latin alphabet. Hence why typically Slavic phonemes, which in Cyrillic are represented by single letters (such as sh = ш), in Polish get represented with two (sz), and why you need a double-letter context to know how to pronounce a given sequence of characters. Unfortunately, back in the 10th century, the choice of an alphabet was essentially a pure consequence of whom the first ruler of Poland would adopt Christianity from: the Western part of the Church (this was before the official Schism) or the Rus (Ruthenia). The Rus had a liturgy in Old Church Slavonic, and for the liturgical books they adopted an alphabet, the Glagolitic (a predecessor to the Cyrillic), which was more suitable for the phonetics of the language (and, indeed, of Slavic languages in general). Poland adopted the Latin liturgy and the alphabet was part of the “package”.