Is there a more based book?

Burton's 17 volume translation is regarded as the most complete version of the Nights, even though he did make some shit up.

>Aladdin, Sinbad, and Ali Baba weren't even part of the original text, some random French guy put them in
>they're the stories that everybody remembers
How can the various anonymous Arabs who wrote the other stories ever recover?

The full thing is very graphic and pornographic. The kiddie fables stuff is usually a condensed version that only has Sinbad, Aladdin and a few other stories in it.

this is a very complicated question that many scholars dedicate their lives to, and much like 'homer' we don't have very many definites we can associate with this monument of literature. but the basics are that the earliest arabic versions using the Shirazd frame story date from the Abbasid caliphate's translation movement of the 9th and 10th centuries.
before that it was a persian book, using the same 'princess telling stories to survive' frame. as a persian book there were many fewer stories (~250 IIRC) but this was explained as some stories needing multiple nights to tell. there's some sanskrit influence but it's hard to dig up exactly
after being translated into arabic, many of the persian stories began to be dropped from the collection or relocated to have arabic places and names, arabic stories were added basically willy-nilly, with different compilers having their own versions, etc. it was an oral tradition, so it was constantly in flux, with a tendency towards growing closer to the 1000 of the title. gradually there consolidated two lineages of primary versions, with some shared core stories.
europe first gained access via a french translation in the 18th century, but that translation also had some stories that don't appear anywhere else. the translator claims he heard them orally but of course no record exists of that. some of the stories he added are the most recognized in the West, stuff like Aladdin, Sinbad, and Ali Baba. those don't exist in other arabic versions
anyway even after that point the nights continued to change and expand. lots of stories that used to be independent were swallowed up.

>Translations

Though it's nice to see such praise for women authors

The Burton translation is worth a read on its own merits.

>Burton shared [John] Payne's enthusiasm for archaic and forgotten words. The style Burton achieved can be described as a sort of composite mock-Gothic, combining elements from Middle English, the Authorized Version of the Bible and Jacobean drama. Most modern readers will also find Burton's Victorian vulgarisms jarring, for example ‘regular Joe Millers’, ‘Charleys’, and ‘red cent’. Burton's translation of the Nights can certainly be recommended to anyone wishing to increase their word-power: ‘chevisance’, ‘fortalice’, ‘kemperly’, ‘cark’, ‘foison’, ‘soothfast’, ‘perlection’, ‘wittol’, ‘parergon’, ‘brewis’, ‘bles’, ‘fadaise’, ‘coelebs’, ‘vivisepulture’, and so on. ‘Whilome’ and ‘anent’ are standard in Burton's vocabulary. The range of vocabulary is wider and stranger than Payne's, lurching between the erudite and the plain earthy, so that Harun al-Rashid and Sinbad walk and talk in a linguistic Never Never Land.

>In view of the sexual imagery in the source texts (which Burton emphasized even further, especially by adding extensive footnotes and appendices on Oriental sexual mores) and the strict Victorian laws on obscene material, both of these translations were printed as private editions for subscribers only, rather than published in the usual manner. Burton's original 10 volumes were followed by a further six (seven in the Baghdad Edition and perhaps others) entitled The Supplemental Nights to the Thousand Nights and a Night, which were printed between 1886 and 1888. It has, however, been criticized for its "archaic language and extravagant idiom" and "obsessive focus on sexuality" (and has even been called an "eccentric ego-trip" and a "highly personal reworking of the text").

>The Terminal Essay in volume 10 of Burton's Nights contains a 14,000-word section entitled "Pederasty."

You aren’t the real butterfly

I am not the exact same person I was 3, 4, 5 years ago. No of you are either.
You cannot place your foot in the same river twice, and from year to year you cannot even put the same foot into it.

Attached: iphis_in_color___the_beginning_by_emstone.jpg (618x881, 58K)

>No of you
None of you*

I mean the tripcode. The other one is the genuine butterfly because she has certain images she has saved which are a dead giveaway. You do not

Just stop. This is embarrassing.

This trip is the laptop I've had for years. It has far more images than the pad

Attached: Isa Risjord.png (1597x938, 2.52M)

i'm probably the only person on the board who read the whole 17 volumes

well what'd you think