memes

hideshow 35 child comments

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 58 points 2 months ago

Weird name for a space movie.

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 40 points 2 months ago (21 children)

It's probably google translated to Russian, since it's just two nouns slapped together.

hideshow 21 child comments

parent

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago* (20 children)

Yeah, Google Translate also translates carpet as "ковер" instead of the proper spelling (ковёр), and it actually does translate "carpet mold" as "ковер плесень" (instead of a more proper translation like "ковровая плесень" or "плесень в ковре").

I'd say it's 99% google translate

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (19 children)

Eh, both are proper spelling, I don't think any Russian manual said it's mandatory. The ë is used mainly in dictionaries, Russian schoolbooks, etc. where ambiguity should be minimal.

hideshow 19 child comments

parent

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

Fair enough. I tend to use it because it just reduces scanning ambiguity when reading text quickly.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (17 children)

It's also used by people who respect the language and don't want to see it gradually turn into a shitshow like English where it's spelled ‘Manchester’, pronounced ‘Liverpool’.

hideshow 17 child comments

parent

[–] martti@suppo.fi 2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

That's how zero-understanding of linguistics looks like .

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Sure, Ḿäřṭṯı, sure.

parent

[–] martti@suppo.fi -3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

I wonder how a person with such a great love to his rodnoй яzõk , can have no interest in it at all (or how any languages work in modern standards) , meanwhile commenting stupid shit like this.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Well, it doesn't matter what I write, does it? Why would I care then how it works?

parent

[–] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

It's not like what he said isn't true or actually correct. That's actually comprehending how languages work.

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Russian won't turn into a shitshow because of people not using ë, that's catastrophism. No language has turned into a shitshow, for that matter, English functions well too.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

“I haven't seen thing happen during my lifetime, therefore thing doesn't happen.”

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What is the thing that's supposed to happen? You said English already is a 'shitshow' (not a thing that could've happened in our lifetime, but long ago), but it isn't a shitshow, and that's what I responded to, so you're moving the topic here.

parent

[–] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

It is a shitshow. I mean, what the fuck with the totally inconsistent, incoherent and incongruent phonetics (and grammar, and syntax, and spelling...)? That meme ("it's spelled 'Liverpool', it's pronounced 'Manchester'") is more of an anecdote than a joke.

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

The only thing you listed that could be described as particularly inconsistent is spelling. But non-phonemic spelling is found in countless other languages and doesn't really hamper the language. It might even be helpful for languages with diverse accents. English could be revised on some points with no issue (, and some other cases), but overall it's functional.

As for the rest, I don't know how phonetics could be inconsistent. Like, is it inconsistent that frogs is pronounced as /frogz/, but clocks as /kloks/, so the -s plural ending is realised differently in different words? As for grammar, what about it? Do you think it's unusual for a language to have "irregular" forms such as buy-bought rather than *buyed? Tons of languages have them, I doubt if there's any without "irregularities" at all.

(Note: syntax is a part of grammar.)

Viewing these things as a shitshow, as something particularly negative or even harmful, is literally anti-scientific.

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

When was the last time you read a book which used ë regularly (as in, not just in cases as distinguishing все-всё)?

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

For better or worse, I've been reading almost exclusively in English for years, but also listening to English audiobooks wherein I learned a lot of new things about words that I've seen before. That's precisely why I've become more entrenched in my belief that ‘ё’ shouldn't be optional. And use it myself always.

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

If you had read books in Russian, you'd notice that basically no Russian writer after Karamzin (who IIRC proposed the ë letter himself) "respected" the Russian language enough to use the letter. It's legitimate for you to use it (all the better for me as a foreign speaker), but it's not something to act elitist about.

Whether Russian will go in the direction of English depends on how its pronunciation develops, for now it's still pretty close to the spelling, although there are words and forms such as "моего, сегодня" that are pronounced as "моево, севодня". I wonder how many people would support changing this spelling.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

In no way am I elitist about it. I'm just opposed to the language moving away from being phonemic, and am rather alarmist about that prospect, even though I know full well that the pronunciation will drift away while the spelling stays conservative.

‘его’ is at least a typical consistent rule, mapping to the pronunciation ‘ево’ in the same places in various words, just like ‘eau’ in French. But the replacement of ‘ё’ with ‘е’ is just egregious violation of a letter that has its own sound, without any reason for that.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In no way am I elitist about it

I think that equating respect for language with usage of the letter and vague guilt-tripping of people who don't use it is elitist.

the replacement of ‘ё’ with ‘е’

It's the other way around, actually, 'e' is the original letter and sound, the sound changed by the 18th century or so (as far as I'm aware) and then the modified letter was proposed but never made generally mandatory. People aren't replacing anything, they're writing same as always.

‘его’ is at least a typical consistent rule, mapping to the pronunciation ‘ево’ in the same places in various words

The name Егор doesn't follow it, but моего and сегодня do. Why? You have to explain the etymology of сегодня at the very least to make sense of it, undermining the consistency.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

equating respect for language with usage of the letter and vague guilt-tripping of people who don't use it is elitist

Indeed, anyone using ‘q’ is better than others.

Oh wait, could you please check real quick if ‘ё’, a letter of the alphabet taught in school, maps unambiguously to a specific sound?

the modified letter was proposed but never made generally mandatory

Well maybe it was proposed because ‘ё’ denotes a very particular sound? Which, notably, Western languages can never quite approximate with their feeble ‘yo’ attempts, though Nordic languages do have a vaguely similar ‘ø’ or somesuch.

The name Егор doesn't follow it, but моего and сегодня do. Why?

Well, perhaps because the letters are in a different position? Why is /ˈlɔɹəns/ of Arabia not pronounced akin to /ˈsɛsəl/ B. Demille?

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago

So yeah, you haven't really responded to the statement that your position is elitist, or at least smartassery that no linguist actually supports.

maybe it was proposed because ‘ё’ denotes a very particular sound?

Indeed. And then it wasn't made generally mandatory, and then the Russian language continued to work fine.

Which, notably, Western languages can never quite approximate

Why would that be remotely notable here? We're talking about Russian spelling of Russian language.

perhaps because the letters are in a different position?

And what is that position that makes the difference?

parent

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Well rug... Not carpet. And it's literally saying the carpet is the mold. So it would better translate to rug-mold.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

"Ковёр" is closer to "carpet" I'd argue. I'd translate "rug" as "коврик"

parent

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I would agree with you. There's a regional difference I was born in Lvov Ukraine so I speak a more Ukrainian Russian. But I would venture to say that палас would be a more accurate word over all.

parent

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

So just running a double check due to my historical map game infected brain, is Lvov the same as the historical Liviv? I know that different regions have different names depending on language, culture, and region or is this just a case of two places having really similar/ the same name for reasons, IE Ontario Canada vs Ontario California.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Same city, Lvov is the Russian and Lviv is the Ukrainian name. Ukrainian has historically shifted many 'o's to 'i'.

parent

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Yes. It is now called Lviv. At the time is was called Lvov because I was born during the Soviet era.

parent

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Thanks I knew there have been multiple names for that city due to Soviet fuckery and whatnot but wasn't sure. Like I knew it was originally Polish, then it was absorbed by the Soviets when they shoved everyone westward, and now it's Ukrainian but I wasn't quite sure.

parent

[–] Shindo66@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

The carpet is the mold, what a brilliant idea!

parent

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 10 points 2 months ago

Ah just like me babushka used to make

parent

[–] sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

Lmaoooo

parent

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

Cover plesn

parent

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 months ago

the original astrophage.

parent

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't know if I like Interstellar or just Hans Zimmer

[–] DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org 6 points 2 months ago

Enlightened take

parent

[–] TwodogsFighting@lemdro.id 4 points 2 months ago

If you like Hans Zimmer, just watch pirate movie. At least then you don't need subtitles.

parent

[–] nightwatch_admin@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Why not just use “Solaris” / «Солярис»? Great movie.

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

I had some for the best sleep ever watching that movie.

parent

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago*

Solaris was genuinely very difficult to follow. As an avante garde Sci Fi piece, incredible. You can draw a straight line from Solaris to a hundred Star Trek and Dr Who and Battle Star Galactica episodes. Absolutely littered with cool ideas.

As... entertainment? It was a bumpy road. The execution was rough, even by the standards of the era.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Everyone seemingly missed that you linked a different ‘Solaris’.

parent

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Haven’t seen the movie yet but the book was fuckin trippy! Loved it!

parent

[–] xspurnx@leminal.space 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Everything I have read by Stanisław Lem was damn good. I should pull Golem XIV from the shelve and see if it aged well considering the current AI developments...

parent

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago

Golem XIV

Very obviously an inspiration for Doctor Manhattan.

parent

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago

What are your top 3 of Lem's?

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Since you're probably thinking of Tarkovsky's film, be advised that just like with ‘Stalker’, he didn't really follow the original material, and instead used it to build his own ideas. So it's a separate art piece.

parent

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago

Huh. Good to know. Thanks!

parent

[–] falidorn@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Definitely one of the most boring films I’ve ever seen. Great solution for insomnia.

parent

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (6 children)

It's worthwhile to acknowledge that movies don't all exist along a Good-Bad axis, but also along an axis of Watchable-Unwatchable.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie with Bob Hoskins is Bad and Watchable.

La Dolce Vita is Good, but I would be hard-pressed to call it Watchable.

Morbius is Terrible, but not even remotely in a fun, Watchable way. It's just cold dog shit.

And of course all of these categories are 100% subjective relative to the individual viewer.

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

I'll take a bad movie that knows it's bad over a movie that thinks it's good every day of the week.

parent

[–] Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago

ITS MORBING TIME

parent

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago*

Context also matters.

Samurai cop, awful. Literally 0 redeeming value. If you watched it alone you'd pissed.

In a group of friends? One of the most intensely watchable movies you'll ever see.

parent

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Sure but why did I watch a movie called racing in the rain that I thought was about racing potentially in wet weather and I ended up crying for the next 2 hours?

parent

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Awful terrible movie no like . its good tho

parent

[–] TwodogsFighting@lemdro.id 1 point 2 months ago

Cold, sloppy wet, dog shit.

parent

[–] owl@infosec.pub 11 points 2 months ago

Smells like casual and carpet mold in here.

[–] Aedaz_@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago

I love movies but Ive never been into the real artsy side of it

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 5 points 2 months ago

Kobep njnecehb

[–] sundray@lemmus.org 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Sorry guys, I just don't like movies very much 🤷🏻‍♂️.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago*

If it's not in black and white, with two middle aged French people sharing a cigarette after some loveless sex while looking out a window and quoting poetry, I don't want anything to do with it.

parent

[–] kshade@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I thought Interstellar was about as good as 2001.

[–] DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

As opposed to 2001 I understood Interstellar, which means it must be worse

parent

[–] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

2001 is one of the rare movies where the book isn't better but it is important. The movie and book were written at the same time with Clark and Kubrick working together. The book provides additional insights that are difficult to convey in a movie.

parent

[–] Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

This comment should have a trigger warning lol

parent

[–] kshade@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I aim to please 🐱

parent

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Worker and Parasite was better than anything Disney ever did.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't like Interstellar because what the hell does growing corn have to do with going into a black hole?

[–] Dhar@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

You ever play cornhole?

parent

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

Subtle.

parent

[–] halezinflames@lemmus.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

MCU nerds if you didn't like Infinity Bore

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago

MCU nerds if you just bought the CPU

parent

[–] Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

Interstellar is just straightforwardly a worse version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now I kinda want to know of there's a older, Russian version of that, though.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

2001 was revolutionary, but it's 90 minutes too long for the story it tells, and not nearly long enough for the story it pretends it's trying to tell.

parent

[–] Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago

I think it's brilliant in a larger artistic aesthetic sense, as an experience, but I fully agree that it should have been an hour longer to really tell the story to completion. I've always treated 2001 more as an audio-visual experience, though, so I don't really mind. The Arthur C. Clarke book exists for a more plot-based experience. But your criticism is totally valid.

parent

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

It's actually Czechoslovak, but check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarie_XB-1

parent

[–] Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago

Holy shit, not only do I love Lem but also The Magellanic Cloud specifically, I can't wait to watch this. Thanks for the recommendation!!

parent

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk -2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Anything that Nolan isn't involved with is a winner. He's an awful director who makes cold forgettable characters.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago*

/c/UnpopularOpinion

Nolan's a highly talented auteur cinematographier.

He's doing Magical Realism with SciFi pastiche, he's always got a great cast, infinity zillion dollar budget with stunning special effects.

Absolutely nothing clever or interesting to say with his work. It all ends at the level of two DudeBros snorting a line of coke and pretending to be smart.