<p>The problem is than pinyin <code>x</code> also sounds "like" an English <code>sh</code>. I'm pre-embryonic at Chinese but I've been an armchair linguist for years and I'm in China trying to pick up Mandarin right now.</p>

<p>Both Pinyin <code>sh</code> and <code>x</code> are different from English <code>sh</code>.</p>

<p>In English <code>sh</code> your tongue is at the ridge just behind your upper teeth.</p>

<p>In Pinyin <code>sh</code> your tongue bends backwards at the tip toward your palate. It curls upward.</p>

<p>In Pinyin <code>x</code> the middle of your tongue is at your palate and the tip of the tongue is at or near your bottom teeth.</p>

<p>But even knowing this and usually being good at mimicking speech sounds I must get it wrong constantly because people don't understand most of my efforts at Chinese. Also as I move from place to place I'm sure people don't all pronounce these Chinese sounds alike.</p>

<hr>

<p>So what you might find is that maybe many Chinese hear your "English sh" as a "Pinyin sh" but perhaps some others might find that to them they hear a "Pinyin x", or hear a strange sound they don't immediately associate with either Chinese sound.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T22:50:47.747Z
Although they are in complementary distribution, I would be very careful with merging them. If you don't merge, you give the listener TWO clues to what you're saying (the initial and the final), if you merge theme, you only give the listener ONE. So, even if xi and shi are obviously different both in initial and final, if you pronounce the initial the same  and then botch the final a bit, that would be very bad indeed.
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T22:51:31.153Z
Still, if given a list of various common pronunciation problems, I would put x/sh distinction quite far down the list. Most students have way more serious problems than that!
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-06T14:34:32.633Z
There are several different opinions as to what the palatal sibilants and affricates ([ɕ t͡ɕ t͡ɕʰ]) are allophones of. Historically, they arose as a merger of the alveolars [s t͡s t͡sʰ] and the velars [x k kʰ] before high vowels/glides; but they are often now seen to be allophones of the retroflex series [ʂ t͡ʂ t͡ʂʰ] (or indeed either the velars or the alveolars). Doubles like [sa] ‹sa›, [ʂa] ‹sha›, and [ɕa] ‹xia› are then taken to be /sa/, /ʂa/, and /Sja/ (where /S/ is the underlying phoneme of one’s choice, either /s/, /ʂ/, or /x/).
Janus Bahs Jacquet
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-06T17:17:18.957Z
I have read that counter to many linguists intuitions, psycholinguistic tests have pretty much conclusively shown that for native speakers they do in fact behave like allophones of the velars. I don't know the testing methods or have references, just stumbled across it while Googling my difficulties in Chinese phonology ...
hippietrail
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T06:21:19.920Z
A supplementary note: `sh` and `x` are complementary, for instance, there's no `shin` but only `xin`, and there's no `x+/u/` but only `shu`
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T06:22:31.970Z
In this respect, they do not contrast with each other; the initial consonant (whether it's `sh` or `x`) can be viewed as determined by the following sounds. So I think if one gets the vowels right, mixing the initial consonant as the English `sh` isn't really a problem for understanding
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T06:29:00.340Z
@user58955: Really? I have to admit I haven't been able to even get a handle on the complimentary distributions of various sounds in Chinese. I'm a tiny bit better at it with the vowels that do this than with the consonants ...
hippietrail
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T06:36:25.337Z
I think so. `sh` and `x` are not contrastive... despite that fact there are both `shuan` and `xuan` in pinyin, the `a` in `xuan` is actually an /e/ sound so they are different.
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T06:41:52.077Z
This kind of thing is the biggest hurdle in learning Pinyin for me, and not having a grasp of Pinyin is one of the biggest hurdles in learning how to pronounce and be understood `\-:`
hippietrail
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T07:32:40.600Z
This is also something I don't understand... Even Wade–Giles system adopts `hsüan` not `hsüen`
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T07:37:49.340Z
But there's no confusion in Wade-Giles, because it's umlaut u in this case, so it's different from `shuan`. There is no `shüan`
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T07:45:16.210Z
I think these are cases where Pinyin strives to be mroe efficient for people who already know how to speak Mandarin, at the cost of making it harder for people trying to learn.
hippietrail
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T13:17:24.787Z
I think that pinyin tend to over-simplify its system by merging symbols of different vowels and consonants, so that it fits the English alphabet mostly.
phoeagon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-17T05:31:17.490Z
2013-11-17T05:31:17.490Z
hippietrail
<p>Technically they are close but very different sounds, as you may are already aware of. The difference is not as obvious on the word Shampoo though. I think the reason is that the tongue position is somewhat affected by the vowel 'a'. But you'll definitely notice the difference if you apply those two sounds on the word 'shoot'.</p>

<p>However, nowadays many people do bother to curl tongues that much, so for them, the pronunciation of ʂ indeed sounds very close to ʃ.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-04T20:54:14.173Z
2013-12-04T20:54:14.173Z
Mingjing Zhang
<p>Alright, I'm pretty sure it is not.</p>

<p><code>sh</code> in pinyin is a [ʂ] in IPA (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_sibilant" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_sibilant</a>), while <code>sh</code> in <em>shampoo</em> in English, is a [ʃ] in IPA (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_palato-alveolar_sibilant" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_palato-alveolar_sibilant</a>).</p>

<p>Although it sounds pretty close and as a near-native speaker of Mandarin Chinese I use the SH in <em>shampoo</em> to pronounce [sh] in pinyin. Still I don't think the listed entries in the wikipedia is correct on this one. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Transcription_into_Chinese" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Transcription_into_Chinese</a>)</p>

<p>So what do you think? I'm near-native in Mandarin Chinese but no professional linguist.</p>

<pronunciation><pinyin>
Is pinyin `sh` of 什 the same as SHampoo
# Is pinyin `sh` of 什 the same as SHampoo

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-11-17)

Alright, I'm pretty sure it is not.

`sh` in pinyin is a [ʂ] in IPA (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_sibilant>), while `sh` in *shampoo* in English, is a [ʃ] in IPA (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_palato-alveolar_sibilant>).

Although it sounds pretty close and as a near-native speaker of Mandarin Chinese I use the SH in *shampoo* to pronounce [sh] in pinyin. Still I don't think the listed entries in the wikipedia is correct on this one. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Transcription_into_Chinese>)

So what do you think? I'm near-native in Mandarin Chinese but no professional linguist.

**Tags:** pronunciation, pinyin


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-11-17. Score: 2

The problem is than pinyin `x` also sounds "like" an English `sh`. I'm pre-embryonic at Chinese but I've been an armchair linguist for years and I'm in China trying to pick up Mandarin right now.

Both Pinyin `sh` and `x` are different from English `sh`.

In English `sh` your tongue is at the ridge just behind your upper teeth.

In Pinyin `sh` your tongue bends backwards at the tip toward your palate. It curls upward.

In Pinyin `x` the middle of your tongue is at your palate and the tip of the tongue is at or near your bottom teeth.

But even knowing this and usually being good at mimicking speech sounds I must get it wrong constantly because people don't understand most of my efforts at Chinese. Also as I move from place to place I'm sure people don't all pronounce these Chinese sounds alike.

---

So what you might find is that maybe many Chinese hear your "English sh" as a "Pinyin sh" but perhaps some others might find that to them they hear a "Pinyin x", or hear a strange sound they don't immediately associate with either Chinese sound.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: A supplementary note: `sh` and `x` are complementary, for instance, there's no `shin` but only `xin`, and there's no `x+/u/` but only `shu`  
> **username_4**: In this respect, they do not contrast with each other; the initial consonant (whether it's `sh` or `x`) can be viewed as determined by the following sounds. So I think if one gets the vowels right, mixing the initial consonant as the English `sh` isn't really a problem for understanding  
> **username_1**: @username_4: Really? I have to admit I haven't been able to even get a handle on the complimentary distributions of various sounds in Chinese. I'm a tiny bit better at it with the vowels that do this than with the consonants ...  
> **username_4**: I think so. `sh` and `x` are not contrastive... despite that fact there are both `shuan` and `xuan` in pinyin, the `a` in `xuan` is actually an /e/ sound so they are different.  
> **username_1**: This kind of thing is the biggest hurdle in learning Pinyin for me, and not having a grasp of Pinyin is one of the biggest hurdles in learning how to pronounce and be understood `\-:`  
> **username_4**: This is also something I don't understand... Even Wade–Giles system adopts `hsüan` not `hsüen`  
> **username_4**: But there's no confusion in Wade-Giles, because it's umlaut u in this case, so it's different from `shuan`. There is no `shüan`  
> **username_1**: I think these are cases where Pinyin strives to be mroe efficient for people who already know how to speak Mandarin, at the cost of making it harder for people trying to learn.  
> **username_0**: I think that pinyin tend to over-simplify its system by merging symbols of different vowels and consonants, so that it fits the English alphabet mostly.  
> **username_2**: Although they are in complementary distribution, I would be very careful with merging them. If you don't merge, you give the listener TWO clues to what you're saying (the initial and the final), if you merge theme, you only give the listener ONE. So, even if xi and shi are obviously different both in initial and final, if you pronounce the initial the same  and then botch the final a bit, that would be very bad indeed.  
> **username_2**: Still, if given a list of various common pronunciation problems, I would put x/sh distinction quite far down the list. Most students have way more serious problems than that!  
> **username_3**: There are several different opinions as to what the palatal sibilants and affricates ([ɕ t͡ɕ t͡ɕʰ]) are allophones of. Historically, they arose as a merger of the alveolars [s t͡s t͡sʰ] and the velars [x k kʰ] before high vowels/glides; but they are often now seen to be allophones of the retroflex series [ʂ t͡ʂ t͡ʂʰ] (or indeed either the velars or the alveolars). Doubles like [sa] ‹sa›, [ʂa] ‹sha›, and [ɕa] ‹xia› are then taken to be /sa/, /ʂa/, and /Sja/ (where /S/ is the underlying phoneme of one’s choice, either /s/, /ʂ/, or /x/).  
> **username_1**: I have read that counter to many linguists intuitions, psycholinguistic tests have pretty much conclusively shown that for native speakers they do in fact behave like allophones of the velars. I don't know the testing methods or have references, just stumbled across it while Googling my difficulties in Chinese phonology ...  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2013-12-04. Score: 0

Technically they are close but very different sounds, as you may are already aware of. The difference is not as obvious on the word Shampoo though. I think the reason is that the tongue position is somewhat affected by the vowel 'a'. But you'll definitely notice the difference if you apply those two sounds on the word 'shoot'.

However, nowadays many people do bother to curl tongues that much, so for them, the pronunciation of ʂ indeed sounds very close to ʃ.


---

