apocryphal = archetypal? unbelievable?

Tue Feb 16 15:43:10 UTC 2010

>> "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_culture/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