The thing is those sounds are used too much in the language. Instead of having such headache in the language, they should have invented new letters, or just simply adopted cyrillic alphabet.

>>52036814
sh and ch are the exact same thing

>>52037052
Maybe if the British Isles weren't raped as often as they were, they would speak like rest of the Europe.

>>52037098
No they aren't.

>>525203711
prove it

>>52036814
Because we're not told how to pronounce it.

>omg lol why do people find あ so hard to pronounce haha it's just 'a'

>>52037098
Nah, but those are pairs of exact sameness desu:
ś - sz (both "sh" like "shit")
ź - ż (both "zh" like "pleasure")
ć - cz (botch "ch" like "cheat")

Prove me wrong, kurwy

>>52037345
Pretty much this, when we see a whole bunch of consonants strung together in a fashion that makes no sense according to our understanding of writing then we're going to be confused.

>what do you mean you can't pronounce kyczlorczwrsky? it's so easy

>>52037919
There is no: ż, ś and ć in English.

Now fuck off you baiting Syrian shit.

>>52037919
there is no single ź in pleasure. Same for ś in shit and ć in cheat.

>>52038151
>>52038031
To me they sound the same though - probably has to with palatisation which also happens in Russian (Ь) where I can't hear any difference either

>>52039306
>>52038031
The English 'sh' is not pronounced like the Polish 'sz'. The Polish sound is a retroflex sibilant fricative, while the English 'sh' in most dialects is a palato-alveolar sibilant fricative. To Polish ears, the English 'sh' should sound like a softer 'sz', somewhere in between 'sz' and 'ś'.

Most English speakers (and German, apparently) will not be able to tell the difference between 'sz' and 'ś'.