legendary = believe it (verificatory) or not (fabulatory)
Joel S. Berson
Berson at ATT.NET
Tue Feb 16 18:52:27 UTC 2010
"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_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
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list