English: Shakespeare

nope

>proust > Rabelais
dude fuck no.

I think he meant foundational authors. So USA would be Whitman, Russia Pushkin etc.

Not so late as the Russians: Pushkin, 1837 (younger than Emerson..)

Then Montaigne certainly over Rabs for France-

If it's foundational then wouldn't English be Chaucer?

Vondel.
>not German
They were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the high medieval period. It's close enough.

eh, but he wrote in Middle English. Shakespeare has much more influence on modern English language literature.

I'll give you that.

>Chaucer
>USA

Get the fuck out, brainlet.

gr8 b8 m8

This kind of shitposting isn't clever or funny and brings the general post quality skidding down. Please refrain from making posts like this in the future. Thank you.

Most people in the USA speak English.

>strawmanning

>foundational german writer
>wrote in dutch

no nigga
no

Dutch is a German language. The "High German" that Hitler liked and which is now considered modern German didn't even exist in the same timeframe as the others.

Gernan: Walther von der Vogelweide, ca. 1200.

literally who lmao

>he doesn't know about mediavel german literature.

Disgusting t.bh

English is a country since when?

zettels traum tho

What connects these writers

brain-teaser

Gogol was more influential tho. Considerably.

Yeah, could be Gogol too.

That's a stupid way to spell Montaigne.
Middle English is close enough to modern English for your point to be irrelevant.

This is such a hare-brained simplification that I hope you are trolling, otherwise you are an immense retard.

The Italian language sure as fuck didn't "exist" too back then when Dante was alive, his Tuscan dialect, out of dozens of others, was made the base on the unified Italian language would be codified centuries later was because he made it prestigious with his writing.

Are you telling me that High German dialects didn't exist in the 17th century? Or that the seminal literature work in the German language should be drawn from Dutch just because it's also included in the linguistic classification as a Germanic language?

The names in the OP are there exactly because they codified the modern forms of their respective languages, which is why Shakespeare is in there instead of Chaucer, Rabelais instead of Proust, and why a dutch-language writer doesn't belongs in the German category. You mouth-breather.

>The names in the OP are there exactly because they codified the modern forms of their respective languages, which is why Shakespeare is in there instead of Chaucer, Rabelais instead of Proust, and why a dutch-language writer doesn't belongs in the German category. You mouth-breather.

Finally someone with a brain.

Shakespeare doesn't really fit in then, tho, he's pretty far from LME.

Goethe, of course. Faust is a masterpiece.