>>8232837
maybe at gunpoint

only if you're english because it is the dominant and therefore best language, and will hopefully one day completely replace all the others.

>>8232837
Yes because if you're reading something famous it will have been translated by an actual translator and not some jumped up video game cuckold.

>>8232837

If one seeks to read literature in only in its original language, there are only two possible results. A) they try to learn a language each time they need to read literature, resulting in them being a linguistic dilettante that has a poor grasp on every language. Don't kid yourself op. Even if you strictly limit literature to what's in Europe, that's still to many languages to learn properly. B) they only read In languages they already understand, leading to them being woefully under read.

Don't fall for the meme OP. Rejoice for the people who spend years trying to bring you the best translations they can and weep for what you will never be able to truly appreciate.

poetry
no

philo?

i'd argue that if an italian or any latin text where to be translated in another latin text it wouldn't matter much.

but otherwise it really depend on how far you want to understand the fucker

>>8232837
I'm german and I usually stick to the original if it's english, french or german. If the original language is something else, then I go with the best translation (which is usually english, but in some cases (e.g. the witcher) it's german).

It's incredible how different different translation of the same text can be. The translator usually puts way too much of his own interpretation into it.

>>8232837
>prose
Yes

>verse
no

Yes, of course, even poetry.