apocryphal = archetypal? unbelievable?

[Joel S. Berson]

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