/lit/ - Literature

>>8867517
come over to /sci/ and we'll fuck yu up bookworm

>>8471077
>>8471082
i wrote this pile of steaming piss translation: >>8469630
>>8469635

>Sie gingen einsam unter dem obskur Schatten.
1. i know enough latin to know that its is "under the night" and "through the shadow" you have "under the shadow" and no mention of "light" or "though" whatsoever
2. like you im just going of the english in here, but i think "hidden" refers to the people, not the shade (how can shade be hidden?)
3. obskur is not hidden. this is what Duden says:
BEDEUTUNGSÜBERSICHT
[nicht näher bekannt und daher] fragwürdig, anrüchig, zweifelhaft

MEANING OVERVIEW
[not closely known and therefore] questionable, offensive (?), doubtful

beware of false cognates between german, latin and english. you should read a good list of common false cognates between german and english.

4. you forgot an adjective ending on "obskur" anyway. if you mean "obskur" as an adverb it shouldnt be between the article and the noun - and i dont think "obskur" can be used abverbally anyway. it should be "dem obkuren Schatten"

>I've no how these other Deutschos are managing their garbage without a 'Sie'
1. not deutsch. brit studying german for a few weeks.
2. instead of "they went hidden through the night under the shadow" a german (i think) would say "the hidden (ones) went through the night under the shadow".
verstecken = to hide
versteckten = hidden
Die Versteckten = the hidden (ones, people etc)
e.g. Die Alten sind klug = The old ones are clever

***disclaimer: my german is shit. if anyone knows better german please corrrect my translation and correct my corrections of this other guy***

Not OP, but is there a guide out there for reading Jung? Or could someone gimme the lowdown?

>>8110872
you cant be /lit/ without being /sci/ and vice versa

>>8075167
4. Can you guys recommend me the best film adaptions of Shakepeare's plays?