> Learning Chinese > Speaking and Listening
The difference between 'q' and 'ch'
Home New Posts
Login: Pass: Log in or register for standard view and full access.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Jose -
I don't think it is essential to distinguish between the sounds "q" and "ch" (or "j" and "zh").
Even if you pronounce them the same, you will be understood if you get the vowels right. In fact,
Hanyu pinyin and zhuyin fuhao (bopomofo) are among the few romanisation systems that differentiate
these sounds. The old-fashioned Gwoyeu Romatzyh (國語羅馬字) and Latinxua Sin Wenz
(拉丁化新文字) systems, as well as Wade-Giles and the Taiwanese 注音符號第二式 do not
use separate consonants for "q" and "j" (or even "x", except for Wade-Giles).
The reason why the use of a separate graph for the "q" consonant is not strictly necessary to
represent the sounds of Mandarin Chinese is that it occurs with different vowels than "ch" (and
"c"), and no minimal pairs exist that differ only because of the consonant being "q" or "ch".
Apparent minimal pairs like "qi", "qu", "quan" vs. "chi", "chu", "chuan" do actually have
different vowels, a fact obscured by the double value of the "i" and "u" letters in hanyu pinyin.
In fact, "q", like "j" and "x", only occurs in front of "i" and "ü" (the latter losing the two
dots as a written convention).
One can think of the "q" sound is as a particular case of the c/ch pair with the front vowels "i"
and "ü"; whereas most vowels like "a" or "e" accept combinations with both "c" and "ch", "i" (as
in "bi", not as in "si") and "ü" only accept "q" instead. If you pronounce "ca" and "cha" and
then try to pronounce the same consonants with "i" and "ü" you will find it harder to make the
difference because the front quality of these two vowels somehow pulls the articulation of the
consonant to the front too. Something similar happens with the pairs "za / zha" and "sa / sha" as
opposed to "ji" and "xi". At the point where the c/ch, j/zh and s/sh distinctions become difficult
to make, the sibilant and retroflex consonants merge together and become palatal, following the
vowels to the front of the mouth. This is indeed similar to the English example of "jeep" v.
"German" mentioned by self-taught-mba, where the vowel may also influence the point of
articulation of the consonant.
In phonetic terms, becase of the absence of minimal contrasting pairs with other consonants, "q",
"j" and "x" can be regarded as allophones, just like the difference in English between the "p"
sounds in "pin" and "spin". Important if you want to sound like a native speaker, but not
essential if you want to be understood.
Pleco Software Learn Chinese with our Dictionaries for Palm and Pocket PC.
Learn Chinese in China Learn to speak Chinese 1MonthChinese.com -Mandarin School in China.
Chinese Textbooks Wide range, cheap, varied languages. Also Chinese cartoons, toys, gifts.
Study Chinese in Beijing Affordable Mandarin language courses at BLCU with ChinaUnipath.com.
HNHSoft Dictionary Learn Chinese on Smartphone and PDA with real person's voice.
XueXueXue IQChinese Get beyond the plateau.Take your Mandarin to a new level.
Chinese in Lijiang Short term Chinese study in a beautiful town with a focus on daily life.
MandarinTube Chinese Access to current everyday Chinese language and culture, 24/7.
Learn Chinese Homestay Chinese course, cultural activities & volunteer events in China.
Learn Chinese Online 1-on-1 instant tutoring, diverse courses, native teachers. FREE trial now!
Nihao Chinese Progam Free one-on-one Chinese lesson. Win 5-years of free lessons now!
About Ads (and how to hide them) -- Your message here
Quest -
Quote:
I don't think it is essential to distinguish between the sounds "q" and "ch" (or "j" and "zh").
I think it is essential. You cannot be understood pronoucing all zh ch sh words as j q x, or vice
versa. Also, it seems impossible to combine zh ch sh with ü. If you can pronounce zhü, chü, or
shü, and it comes out sounding like ju, qu, xu, I'd like to hear it.
PS: I must admit though, when I saw "minimal contrasting pair", I ceased attempting to understand
your post.
self-taught-mba -
Agree with Quest. You need to distinguish.
What he might be saying in essence is that the q/ch combination has vowels and finals combinations
that are mutually independent, therefore they are naturally different. I use a program to help
students see the pattern.
Ch will never be followed by an “i” (unless in isolation where it is like a “placeholder”
so to speak "chi") and never a ü whereas q will always have a “i” or a ü (ü sound because
of the change rule: u to ü after j,q, and x)
(Most students never realize this until after we use a program that blacks out invalid finals
after an initial is selected and the pattern is easy to see.)
So in that way the pinyin system reinforces the difference naturally by the letters after the
first letter (the initial).
That’s why you have to internalize the ü change rules right away.
Probably won’t respond further – rather busy.
self-taught-mba -
@Jose
PS There might be a reason those systems aren't used here anymore btw.
My advisor has even written before about being able to tell someone's pinyin system from their
accent. Read the footnotes in this article"Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard"
Whereas newscasters will now use the official pinyin system.
Rrina -
Besides the sinosplice site, which indeed is very helpful, you may want to check out the free FSI
course which is at: http://fsi-language-courses.com/Chinese.aspx
The tapes and text on ''Pronunciation and romanization'' under ''Resource Module'' are very
detailed, with a lot of practice for pronunciation of q, zh, and all the other letters...
atitarev -
To self-taught-mba:
In my opinion, in English there are no exact equivalents to describe the difference, so they can
only be described, no (English) examples can help.
Surprisingly, Polish has good equivalents of qi-chi, ji-zhi, xi-shi pairs:
ci-czy, dzi-dży, si-szy. They are not 100% accurate either, since Polish voiced/unvoiced and no
aspiration but palatalised/unpalatalised pairs sounds are the same. The vowel followed is also
different.
Japanese has the equivalents for the palatalised only (no palatalisation, though):
qi ち (roughly) [t̠͡ɕi] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voicele...atal_affricate
ji じ can be described as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_...atal_affricate (Mandarin is not
voiced, though?) [d̠͡ʑ]
xi し [ɕi] for more examples of voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative in other languages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voicele...atal_fricative
Note in Japanese Romaji, these sounds are rendered as chi, ji and shi, which is confusing, if you
know Pinyin. Romaji chi and shi are not the same as Pinyin chi and shi, they are more like qi and
xi.
Russian has doubled voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative rendered with letter "щ" [ɕɕ]. ("Щи"
would be spelled "xxi", if it were written using Pinyin letters).
Lu -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose
Wade-Giles and the Taiwanese 注音符號第二式 [MPS2] do not use separate consonants for "q"
and "j"
Yes, and Hanyu Pinyin doesn't distinguish between u as in yu and u as in lu, or between i as in xi
and i as in shi. That doesn't mean they are to be pronounced the same way (yoo? shee?).
Romanization is only a system, it is not the actual pronounciation, and it would be a big mistake
to treat it as such. Wade-Giles, like any other decent system, expects its users to learn and
understand this, so they distinguish between chu (zhu) and chu-dots (ju).
Jose -
Quote:
Romanization is only a system, it is not the actual pronounciation, and it would be a big mistake
to treat it as such.
I completely agree. That is exactly what I think. Sorry that I wasn't able to express myself
clearly. My point is that comparing different transcription systems helps one understand more
clearly the grey areas in the description of the sounds of standard Chinese.
Quest, I apologise for using obscure language. By "minimal contrasting pairs" I was thinking of
pairs like "bat" vs. "pat" in English, which show that "b" and "p" are universally understood as
separate sounds in an unambiguous way. On the other hand, while a phonetician could argue that the
"p" in "pin" and the "p" in "spin" are very different sounds, the occurrence of both p sounds
follows a regular pattern based on the sounds that surround the "p". That is simply the difference
between a phoneme and an allophone.
My point was basically that it is arguable that "q", "j" and "x" are phonemes; they can be
regarded as allophones. I have to admit, though, that Chinese people regard "q" and "ch" as
completely different sounds, unlike English speakers in the case of the "pin" vs. "spin" example.
It is hard to know to what extent this is solely based on native-speaker intuition, or whether the
education based on hanyu pinyin (or zhuyin fuhao) plays a role.
And I don't think hanyu pinyin is necessarily a better system than say MPS II, the Yale system, or
even Wade-Giles, to understand the phonetics of the language.
Lu -
Quote:
Chinese people regard "q" and "ch" as completely different sounds
This is because they are two completely different sounds, made in different places in the mouth. I
can't imagine anyone with good Chinese, be they native or not, pronouncing these two the same way.
They might be related, but so are, for example, p, k and t, yet no one with decent English (Dutch,
Spanish, etc) would mix them up.
Quote:
I don't think hanyu pinyin is necessarily a better system than say MPS II, the Yale system, or
even Wade-Giles, to understand the phonetics of the language
I don't know much about MPS2, but the Taiwanese government is not exactly renown for its wise use
of romanization, and from what I've seen of MPS2 it looks like a botched version of Yale.
Yale, if I'm not mistaken, was created specifically for English-speaking learners of Chinese, and
not so much with an eye on linguistics or phonetics. As a system for English-speaking learners, it
certainly has its merits.
Hanyu Pinyin shows some relations between sounds, like that between z-zh, s-sh and c-ch very
clearly, where W-G does not. W-G also is rather messy with the difference between u as in yu and u
as in bu, and in how it writes the end of sounds like si and chi (ssu, ch'ih). From my limited
linguistic experience, I don't think HYPY is less good a system than W-G, and certainly better
than Yale.
lokki -
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirgcire
When you make the j, x, and q sounds the tongue is placed on the aveolar ridge, near the teeth.
The sound is made by restricting the air between the surface of the the tongue and the aveolar
ridge.
The z, c, and s sounds are made with the tonge even farther forward restricting the air between
the teeth and the surface of the tongue.
Sorry mirgcire, but that is another example of confusing and inaccurate information that can lead
you totally astray. Sadly, much of the advice on pronunciation offered on these forums, and of
what you can dig up on the web, is simply wrong.
Again, go to the sinosplice site and find out. The explanations found in the pronunciation modules
of the FSI course are also very good and can be trusted.
Also, all explanations based on "similar" sounds in English are just rough approximations. They
can help you get the general idea initially but if you are serious about learning you'd better
just ignore them and go straight for the accurate information at sinosplice and in the FSI course.
It might be true that you can get away with not making a difference between two sounds, and still
be understood most of the time, but what kind of an excuse is that ? Sure, it can be useful to be
aware of the fact, but it's the wrong attitude for somone to base their learning on.
All times are GMT +8. The time now is 04:22 PM.
Learning Materials, Mandarin audio lessons, Chinese writing lessons, Chinese vocabulary lists, About chinese characters, News in Chinese, Go to China, Travel to China, Study in China, Teach in China, Dictionaries, Learn Chinese Painting, Your name in Chinese, Chinese calligraphy, Chinese songs, Chinese proverbs, Chinese poetry, Chinese tattoo, Beijing 2008 Olympics, Mandarin Phrasebook, Chinese editor, Pinyin editor, China Travel, Travel to Beijing, Travel to Tibet
