/lit/ - Literature

>>8712745
No, he had a legendary personality.

Gur-tah.

It was clearly a case of huge penis.

>>8712745

No, it was genius. We haven't had a proper genius since Nietzsche, who coincidentally idolized Goethe.

>>8712771

Guh-tah, with the 'T' being somewhere between hard and soft. You can hear the same sound in Spanish sometimes.

>>8712789

Translate bottom right plz.

>>8712745

Do you know anything about Goethe?
He was basically a courtier at one of the most refined courts in Europe. He was the total opposite of autism.

>>8712828

Where did you and my son get to know each other, my Lord Goethe?

>>8712851

Shit, meant to quote that other post asking for translation.

>>8712851

Kek, is it alluding to Goethe's probable bisexuality then?

>>8712834
Oh, eh... oho, hrm
And where eh mister Goethe, have you and my eh son met (which is split "sich kennenlernen" and has a hrm inbetween)
*crave*

>>8712851
jesus christ, how can you misrepresent such a short sentence so hard?

>>8712881

The PV school of translation, ladies and gentlemen.

>>8712883
at least it doesn't misconstrue the meaning as much as >>8712851 does.
>my lord Goethe
>get to know each other
>just leaving out a word just because it's shit

>>8712914

>implying Herr isn't an acceptable translation for Lord in an 18th century context.
>Actually thinks "Mister" is a better translation for Herr in an 18th century context.
>Actually thinks "get to know each other" is a mistranslation of "sich kennenlernen" when it's LITERALLY a literal translation
>thinks "sich kennenlernen" means "to meet"
>not "sich treffen"

>>8712919
>Implying this is written in a language implying an 18th century context
>Implying you can force your interpretation of the text based on clothing onto the text that doesn't support it
>actually thinks just because it's "literal" it conveys the same meaning
>thinks the word "to meet" and "sich treffen" are comperable in this context, and "When did you two meet?" and "Wann habt ihr zwei euch getroffen?" means the same thing.

You're actually arguing for all this, this is hilarious.

>>8712828
>Should I not be proud, when for twenty years I have had to admit to myself that the great Newton and all the mathematicians and noble calculators along with him were involved in a decisive error with respect to the doctrine of color, and that I among millions was the only one who knew what was right in this great subject of nature? -Goethe
>>genius

>believing hagiography

he was not that great. which is not to say he was not great, but not as the great need to have a figure as the foundation of their kultur.

>>8713118
And Newton believed in alchemy and bible codes. Genius doesn't mean universally intelligent and correct.

>>8712745
He was clearly a genius, also a Freemason (Mithraism, Mithras as Mediator (the literal translation) show up in Elective Affinities, as well as the very symbolic practice of putting up the capstone in literal masonry itself), according to some a part of the Bavarian Illuminati and even a Rosicrucian, his interest in the occult and paranormal and mysticism is clearly shown in Faust and in the ending of Elective Affinities, just to speak of what I've read by him, but, yes, he was a little cold and cerebral in his writings, not exactly a very warm and passionate writer except for Werther, of course. Just my opinion.

>>8713465
the rest of work was doing subpar translations of Marlowe, he was mediocre at best

>>8712756
>>8712789
>>8712828
>>8712846

/lit/ doesn't disappoint me for once

>>8713118

He had an ego, so what. Everyone does and his theory of colours is pretty cool even it is more phenomenological than scientific.

>>8714026
>phenomenological

>>8713465
>>And Newton believed in alchemy and bible codes
>he doesn't

>>8714055
No point in trying to reason with embryos bro

bump