mr_nool wrote:fangsanalsatan wrote:It's not really sch either, it's a voiced palato-alveolar sibilant (ʒ), so more like a zh.
It's also not ZHO-say, but ZHU-ze, if we're being pedantic. The last vowel is short and the s is pronounced as a z.
I also don't think that English speakers have a problem pronouncing the voiced palato-alveolar sibilant per se, as it is used in the English language frequently enough (see: vision, rouge, measure, treasure, genre...). The problem arises from the fact that it is not tied to a single letter in the alphabet and English phonology is so random in general that a pronounciation cannot be applied to a foreign word by rule. In the case of Jesus, there is the added issue of an already established English pronounciation, but otherwise it is pretty straight-forward.
So, yeah... how about that performance yesterday?
Nice linguistic explanation! The only point I would like to add is that discussions like SCH/ZH, etc. are a bit tricky. We all have different references as to how these letter combinations should sound depending on our mother tongue. I know this is an English speaking forum, but I'm pretty sure Coca wrote his post about SCH with the Swedish interpretation in mind (in many Swedish dialects SCH would be more similar to the vision/rouge sound you're describing rather than the German SCH. I.E. unless we start using phonetic script (and decide on which one to use) we won't be speaking the same - ahem - language.
Oh, that is a good point. My mind went naturally to the German sch, as that is the language I primarily use. But there's also usually a bit of a lateral thinking involved for me, since there actually are distinct letters in the Croatian alphabet to denote both, namely ž and š.