I've seen some Chinese words like "YUEZHONG". Also in some other languages like Persian and Arabic I've seen words written with "zh". Are these two sounds pronounced in the same way? Is there any word in English using the same combination of letters? Is it right to use "zh" to imply the letter "j"?
Learn English – “zh” vs. “j”. Are these pronounced in the same way
palatalizationpronunciation
Related Solutions
I hope I can answer at least part of your question, and with luck perhaps assuage your frustration to some small degree. You asked about origins:
Lose comes to us from Old English
ORIGIN Old English losian [perish, destroy,] also [become unable to find,] from los [loss.]
Choose comes from the same language:
ORIGIN Old English cēosan, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch kiezen.
In Old English, losian would have sounded something like LOH-zee-ahn, while cēosan would have sounded like CHAY-oh-zahn. Both these words are in infinitive form, and would have different conjugations.
In Middle English, losian became losien and cēosan became chesen or chosen. Now, the double-o construction, seen in words like choose and boot, originally indicated a long vowel sound, which itself originally meant literally a long vowel sound, i.e. one that was held for a longer period of time. There weren't any markings to indicate duration, so an extra letter was added to indicate that a word like boot should actually be pronounced the way we pronounce boat today — exactly analogous to German's pronunciation of das Boot, which does not sound like something one wears on one's feet.
But there was another Middle English word for lose, which was leosen (from OE lēosan), and it's not clear if our current word has a single ancestor. Possibly a merging of the two histories resulted in the pronunciation we have today.
Now, I wish I could draw a clear line for you that brings us from past to present and illustrates why today choose and lose and even whose perfectly rhyme but dose and moose do not, and why we pronounce close (meaning near) differently from close (meaning to shut), but the plain truth is I'm just not that smart. English pronunciation is quirky and peculiar in ways that defy description, much less understanding. If there were anything at all to be done about this, we would have an intolerable situation on our hands; but as there is nothing we can do about it, the situation must be endured. Be comforted by the belief that all these pronunciations will change in time — although to what is not at all clear.
I'll leave you with an old joke, and hope you can put aside your frustration long enough to laugh at the pronunciation and spelling mess we have inherited.
Q. How do you spell fish?
A. Ghoti! Just use the gh from rough, the o from women, and the ti from action (or ration or station or — well, you get the idea).
[Source for the above etymologies: Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, by Eric Partridge]
This interesting page explains that sugar used to be pronounced originally with a common su sound, but (emphases mine):
(...) sometime in the Middle English period the initial letters su shifted to the pronunciation they now have.
If you relax the mouth and tongue somewhat when you are saying the older form, your pronunciation shifts to the modern one, as you’ll realise if you try out the two sounds in turn; the modern version is actually rather easier for slack-jawed English speakers to say. (...) The same change happened with other words, such as sure, and also to words in which the sound occurred in the middle, such as pressure and nation. By the time this shift in pronunciation was taking place, the spelling of the words had already become fixed (...)
Best Answer
Short answer: "zh" and "j" are not pronounced in the same way.
Using the International Phonetic Alphabet, the "zh" digraph would be transcribed as [ʒ], while the "j" letter would be [dʒ]. The "zh" sound occurs at the beginning of the name "Jacques" [ʒɔk], and in the middle of the word "leisure" [liʒɚ]. The "j" sound is two IPA symbols because it is a combination of two sounds, [d] (as in "dog") and [ʒ]; [dʒ] occurs at the beginning of the word "jock" [dʒɔk].
The "zh" and "j" sounds are definitely not identical to an English speaker. In fact, two words could be distinguished only by the difference between those two sounds. The following would represent such a minimal pair:
("Jock" and "Jacques", which I already mentioned, also only differ in that one sound.)
The reason you see many borrowed words using "zh" is because English lacks a standard letter to represent the [ʒ] sound. In French borrowings, it is "j", because "j" is always [ʒ] in French. Sometimes it is "si" (as in "lesion") because of a natural phonological process that occurs in English. So, there is no letter that always gets pronounced [ʒ]. But, in many languages that don't use Latin script, there is a distinct letter for [ʒ]. In these languages, "zh" is often the standard way to translate the sound [ʒ] from their orthographical system to the Latin one in an unambiguous way.
As to whether you can use "zh" to imply "j" — I am not certain what you mean by "imply", but since these are two different sounds, I think the answer is probably no.