5 ms·
Both spellings are correct—they’re just in different languages. Chernóbil (Spanish) is also correct, but you probably wouldn’t point it out because it’s not Rus
by silvestreh 2y ago
Both spellings are correct—they’re just in different languages. Chernóbil (Spanish) is also correct, but you probably wouldn’t point it out because it’s not Russian.
- dagenleg 2y agoAnd I'm sure you see that there might me somewhat of a slight issue with calling Ukrainian cities in Russian, considering the political situation.
- ralfd 2y ago[flagged]
- outworlder 2y agoThis is not a place for political propaganda. The war is far from decided.
- gwervc 2y agoIt was decided years ago, but some politicians and shareholders decided it was a good opportunity to exploit. Also the Russian economy was supposed to collapse few years ago because of UE sanctions. Still waiting for that to happen.
- Retric 2y agoI’d call it collapsed, but Russia is used to severe economic issues so their tolerance is rather different. GDP looks ok with all that military spending and unemployment is down, but the rest of the economy looks terrible.
- trhway 2y agoYou know, man, you should complete your joke and suggest that, following the Far East cities of Russia, the rest of Russia should also start using Chinese spelling.
- thih9 2y agoI guess it’s just as correct as referring to Alaska as “Aljáska” (Russian).
- aguaviva 2y agoExcept it's not. Chernobyl is just another popular spelling that people have gotten accustomed to. But no one outside the Russian Mir ever refers to Alaska as Aljáska. There's no signficance or import to the chosen spelling. This whole flame war is completely pointless.
- thih9 2y ago> Chernobyl is just another popular spelling that people have gotten accustomed to. Exactly. And “Chernóbil” isn’t - that’s my point. So the argument about “Chernóbil” is as pointless as “Aljiáska”.