Print

Print


>>> Not just conlangers.  People in general don't have much attention span,
>>> and
>>> the people in the media are some of the biggets gnats of all, moving
>>> about
>>> from one hot-story-du-jour to the next.  Also realize that interest in
>>> the
>>> film does not equate to people learning the language. Star Trek has one
>>> of
>>> the largest cult followings yet only a handful have bothered to learn
>>> more
>>> than a phrase or two of Klingon.
>
>> Conlangers are especially bad, which is why the comparison is a
>> terrible one. You'll notice that we barely agree on anything here,
>> because auxlangs are our specialty and we see everything wrong with
>> them that nobody else does.
>
> At least conlangers are taking a look at it before moving on. Don't expect
> John Q. Average to give much more than a passing glance because he's not a
> language geek and is just watching the movie for its entertainment value.
>

No, conlangers look at the mechanics of a language and little else.
I'm sure a lot of us have also noticed that we tend to look at natural
languages in a similar way after learning auxlangs - that part of
language x is a bit vague, this could use a little improvement, etc.
Regular people don't do that.

>
>
>>>> Well, speaking as a Christian it wasn't all that great. Too much focus
>>>> on the whipping and execution and barely anything about what Jesus
>>>> actually said. The best parts of the gospel are always when he goes
>>>> around and says something clever. So it didn't even make me want to
>>>> see it a second time. Plus it also used Latin (Romans whipping Jesus
>>>> counted in Latin and I think there were some other scenes there too)
>>>> so the languages in the movie were more just there to be authentic,
>>>> and no appeal to any sort of Aramaic or Latin-based culture.
>>>
>>> "Speaking as a Christian", meaning you somehow disagreed with the story.
>>
>> No, I mean that even as a Christian I found the movie to be quite
>> drab. If it was a movie about some other religious figure I'm sure it
>> would have been even less interesting.
>
> I'm not looking for sensationalism in films.  In fact that's what turns me
> off to modern films.  These days it's all about putting on an some type of
> fashion and stunt show, and forget about having any type of an interesting
> plot.  If the story is good and portrayed in a believable manner then the
> movie has done its job.  Again, when the film was made Mel Gibson stated
> that the point was to highlight the end of Jesus' life and the suffering he
> went through.  It wasn't about his teachings or philosophy.  I haven't seen
> the film so I can't yet judge its artistic merits. Maybe it is boring, maybe
> not.  I will have to say I haven't felt compelled to go out and rent it, or
> any other recent films for that matter.  I did find it interesting that a
> filmaker would pay enough attention to authenticity to even attempt a film
> in Aramaic.
>

Right, you might like it. All I'm saying is that it wasn't the kind of
film that even I (the intended audience) would want to watch a second
time. And it certainly didn't have much to do with Aramaic besides
having the language itself there.

Avatar had a lot more to do with the process of learning languages,
not just simply having the language there. It looks like you haven't
seen it though and I don't want to spoil it for anyone here so no more
detail.

-- 
http://www.pagef30.com