Emilie
@aemilia.bsky.social
“Her diction is so bizarre and bombastic, her thought so obscure and incoherent, as to suggest the trance utterances of modern spirit guides [rather] than the deliberate efforts of a forger.”
Reposted by Emilie
Like here in Norway we've got "Oslo university hospital committed severe research malpractice by violating the privacy of trans youth patients" and instead of talking about prison time, we're at "should there be any change at all or can we trust they won't do it again?"
November 4, 2025 at 10:27 AM
Like here in Norway we've got "Oslo university hospital committed severe research malpractice by violating the privacy of trans youth patients" and instead of talking about prison time, we're at "should there be any change at all or can we trust they won't do it again?"
Reposted by Emilie
Balance issue between fighters and wizards?
Try global communist revolution.
Try global communist revolution.
November 4, 2025 at 11:39 AM
Balance issue between fighters and wizards?
Try global communist revolution.
Try global communist revolution.
kinda a sidenote but Stefan Tilg’s wonderful article is hilarious at times. these are some of my favourite sections, the first for showing that back in the day you could just lie and plagiarise and no-one would make 3 hour long YouTube videos about it. the second because I now hate diminutives
![It is little known, however, that Gottsched himself probably modelled his German Anacreontea on Lubinus' Latin translation. As with Christ on a theoretical level, Gottsched does not acknowledge the practical model of Lubinus, but Zeman's argument here is convincing.
Not only does Gottsched's translation match
Lubinus' quite closely, Gottsched himself draws attention to Lubinus in the following number of his Beyträge (6 [1733]: 363-364). There, he claims that an anonymous friend - in paratextual contexts such friends are often enough invented - has pointed him later to Lubinus' translation, of which he now prints the first three pieces. This version of the story is difficult to believe, not least because there is a pattern in Gottsched's Versuch of covering up his sources to maximize his originality. The choice of Lubinus seems to have been suggested by the fact that Christ was referring only to Estienne and André, which left the third widely read Latin translation, Lubinus', available for stealthy exploitation. It was a very fitting choice, however, because Lubinus' literal yet elegant translation anticipated in Latin Gottsched's ideas about the close imitation of "Anacreon' in German.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:tylj4sbakdwgv7tkm4rosiel/bafkreia5raj7gs326x5avgxvxkqpn4ihdy3gmrwdxhlmet5jdaqlwu44mq@jpeg)
![istics discussed in Taubmann go for his student, Barth, as well. Barth is even able to outdo his teacher in linguistic extravagance, for instance when he fills whole pages with lines consisting exclusively of recherché diminutives (cf. e.g. 3.16.26-35, the description of a "countless" chorus of maidens: Sine nomine absque lege, / Numero, modoque turba, / Placentiuncularum, / Lubentiuncularum, / Vexatiun-cularum, / Digitritiuncularum, / Pedepressiuncularum, / Tativulsiuncularum, / Contentiuncularum, / Rixatiuncularum (...] [the list goes on like this until line
86]).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:tylj4sbakdwgv7tkm4rosiel/bafkreihwk23e6axkcsdlr7cvaxdx2chjkoudkam2xcqffw6niadu2jk3d4@jpeg)
October 21, 2025 at 5:37 PM
kinda a sidenote but Stefan Tilg’s wonderful article is hilarious at times. these are some of my favourite sections, the first for showing that back in the day you could just lie and plagiarise and no-one would make 3 hour long YouTube videos about it. the second because I now hate diminutives
my own feelings on the matter is that the authorship of the poem will forever elude us. what is faulty, however, is to conclude that because female authorship cannot be conclusively proven, male authorship can be taken for granted without argument. imagine being that oblivious in 2018!
October 21, 2025 at 10:53 AM
my own feelings on the matter is that the authorship of the poem will forever elude us. what is faulty, however, is to conclude that because female authorship cannot be conclusively proven, male authorship can be taken for granted without argument. imagine being that oblivious in 2018!