legendary = believe it (verificatory) or not (fabulatory)
Baker, John
JMB at STRADLEY.COM
Tue Feb 16 22:24:15 UTC 2010
The OED's definition of "legendary" preserves the inherent
ambiguity in the term: "Pertaining to or of the nature of a legend;
connected or concerned with legends; celebrated or related in legend."
So a "legendary" figure could be either one that is connected or
concerned with legends (as Alfred was) or one that is in the nature of a
legend, i.e., traditional and imaginative rather than historical (as
Alfred was not, since he was a historical figure). (I am obviously
using the ordinary meaning of "legend," rather than Nevins's technical
sense.)
In practice, I think that when we say "legendary figure," or
refer to someone as "legendary," we usually mean that the person is in
the nature of a legend, and not that there are legends connected with
him or her. Something of a continuum can be seen:
Ali Baba - A fictional character from the Arabian Nights. Since
he is always understood not to have existed, he is not legendary.
Prester John - A supposed powerful Christian king of the East,
he has since the 17th century been understood not to exist. Since
previously he was thought to have been real, he still may be considered
legendary.
Robin Hood - Nobody knows whether there was a real-life original
of this outlaw. Certainly legendary.
Roland - Almost certainly existed, but known almost entirely
from legendary sources, such as the Song of Roland. Most people would
call him legendary.
Johnny Appleseed - A historical figure, but best-known for the
legends about him. Legendary?
George Washington - A well-attested historical figure, known
primarily for historical incidents, although there are legends
associated with him. Most people would not call him legendary, at least
not in the primary sense discussed here, though he may share the "famous
and beloved" sense with, say, Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe.
John Baker
-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Joel S. Berson
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:52 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: legendary = believe it (verificatory) or not (fabulatory)
"Legends, in the most technical sense, are a branch of folklore
relating to a sacred person, place, or incident."
Allan Nevins, _The Gateway to History_, 1963 ed. (but probably not
much revised since 1938), p. 80.
Nevins follows this sentence with a footnote:
"For Henri Bergson's classic distinction between the _fabulatory_
function and the _verificatory_ function, see R. Klebansky, ed.,
_Philosophy and History_, pp. 27 ff."
And then p. 81:
"But in the popular sense 'legend' of course has a much broader
significance. It refers to any narrative which pretends to be
historical, but which is actually traditional and imaginative in
character."
PS: Fabulatory not in OED; verificatory postdates OED2 -1875.
Joel
At 2/16/2010 10:43 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >> "elevated to the status of demigods like the legendary King
Alfred." <<
>
>Possibly record-setting semantic slidin' around.
>
>1. Demigods, not real, are by nature the subjects of myth or, by some
>definitions, legend.
>2. King Alfred was real (not 'legendary").
>3. King Alfred is also the subject of legend (therefore "legendary").
>4. He was also famous and "beloved," therefore "legendary," like Willie
>Mays.
>
>JL
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Dave Wilton <dave at wilton.net> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster: Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
> > Subject: Re: apocryphal = archetypal? unbelievable?
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
> > Here's another one, only with "legendary," from Monday, 15 Feb
Salon.com,
> >
> >
>
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2010/02/15/american_political_cultu
re/i
> > ndex.html
> >
> > "Having become Americans, the former British colonists found it easy
to
> > replace the ancient constitution of the virtuous Anglo-Saxons with
the 1787
> > constitution of the virtuous Founding Fathers, who were quickly
elevated to
> > the status of demigods like the legendary King Alfred."
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf
> > Of
> > Joel S. Berson
> > Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 8:32 AM
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: apocryphal = archetypal? unbelievable?
> >
> > How about "traditional"? Used by historians when they want to cast
> > doubt on a narrative but haven't the guts to say so explicitly.
> >
> > Joel
> >
> > At 2/8/2010 08:56 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> > >I don't believe the general context supports so conservative an
> > >interpretation. Frankly, I think those interpretations are
misguidedly
> > based
> > >on the idea that "it can't be!" Even though Doug and Charlotte
> > essentially
> > >prove that it can be and is. Here is the entire relevant passage:
> > >
> > >
> > >"In the United States, as the troubles of Europe began to intrude
on the
> > >American consciousness, a whole series of films came out of
Hollywood,
> > some
> > >openly pro-Communist, others more generally dispoed to American's
[sic]
> > >girding its psychological loins for the coming shock of battle,
e.g.,
> > >'Northwest Passage' and its portrayal of Rogers' Rangers, and
'Sergeant
> > >York,' the almost apocryphal story of a pacifist turned war hero."
> > >
> > >
> > >"Northwest Passage," IMO, is at least as fictional as "Sergeant
York." It
> > >would make no sense for the writer to call the latter "apocryphal"
in
> > either
> > >of the usual senses of the word.
> > >"Legendary (in the nontechnical sense)," "archetypal," even
"unbelievable"
> > >seem to me to be the chief contenders, though it is impossible to
apply
> > any
> > >of them with absolute certainty. I think that the standard senses
of
> > >"apocryphal" may be ruled out, however.
> > >
> > >The modern Internet exx. - incl. Charlotte Bronte's - show that the
> > standard
> > >senses are not always obvious, *even to those who feel comfortable
in
> > using
> > >the word.* The Bronte exx. also suggests that a semantic drift in
> > >"apocryphal" has been going on for a very long time. The general
principle
> > >of "subliminal semantic drift" should be of interest - even if the
> > "Inglish"
> > >meaning of "apocryphal" isn't.
> > >
> > >JL
> > >
> > >On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Garson O'Toole
> > ><adsgarsonotoole at gmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > > -----------------------
> > > > Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > > Poster: Garson O'Toole <adsgarsonotoole at GMAIL.COM>
> > > > Subject: Re: apocryphal = archetypal? unbelievable?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ---
> > > >
> > > > I think Roger A. Beaumont was attempting to say the following:
> > > > Sergeant York is an historical figure, and Hollywood told his
story in
> > > > a film; however, they altered the story. The inaccuracies in the
> > > > Hollywood version heighten the drama and sharpen the didacticism
in a
> > > > way that is reminiscent of apocryphal storytelling. Yet, the
framework
> > > > of the story has an accurate historical base. Hence, the
Hollywood
> > > > version of Sergeant York is "almost apocryphal".
> > > >
> > > > I am not trying to justify the use of the phrase "almost
apocryphal".
> > > > I am simply but presenting one interpretation. I believe this
> > > > interpretation is similar to what Laurence Horn is saying. The
> > > > Hollywood film version is "almost too good to be true". It also
fits
> > > > James Harbeck's comment somewhat: the movie version is the
"legendary"
> > > > version.
> > > >
> > > > Garson
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Jonathan Lighter
> > > > <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > > -----------------------
> > > > > Sender: American Dialect Society
<ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > > > Poster: Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> > > > > Subject: Re: apocryphal = archetypal? unbelievable?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Good enough for me, James. "Legendary" (in the sportscaster
sense) is
> > > > almost
> > > > > midway between "unbelievable" and "archetypal."
> > > > >
> > > > > If "infamous" can switch polarity, "apocryphal" can go
sidewise
> > > > >
> > > > > JL
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, James Harbeck <
> > jharbeck at sympatico.ca
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > > >> -----------------------
> > > > >> Sender: American Dialect Society
<ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > > >> Poster: James Harbeck <jharbeck at SYMPATICO.CA>
> > > > >> Subject: Re: apocryphal = archetypal? unbelievable?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ---
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Perhaps tangentially (or perhaps relevantly), I've recently
seen
> > > > >> "apocryphal" used of incidents known by the user to have
occurred to
> > > > >> mean "famous" or "legendary" or similar; Google "is now
apocryphal",
> > > > >> "is now almost apocryphal", "has become apocryphal", and
similar to
> > > > >> get some possibles for this. I didn't happen to record the
specific
> > > > >> instance I saw it in most recently, alas.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> James Harbeck.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't
handle the
> > > > truth."
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> > truth."
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>
>
>--
>"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
truth."
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list