154
Like what you like (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/50988998

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 2 months ago

saw this one at 2k views. I laugh every time YouTube recommends it to me now

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Some opinions are more correct than others, but mine is the most correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    $12.39; that's way to expensive!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I believe in freedom of opinion, but facts are sacred.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I recommend Кин-дза-дза

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    am i out of the loop? what the hell is this about?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
    • 80 comments in c/memes@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 141 points 2 months ago (35 children)

    ковер плесень means "carpet mold"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
    •
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (21 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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’.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Sure, Ḿäřṭṯı, sure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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)?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 37 points 2 months ago (10 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (5 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    Smells like casual and carpet mold in here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 6 points 2 months ago

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Kobep njnecehb

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I thought Interstellar was about as good as 2001.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Worker and Parasite was better than anything Disney ever did.

    \

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    MCU nerds if you didn't like Infinity Bore

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] -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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent