Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <seely
linguistlist.org>
myths and legends thinking back to my (honors) tutorial (lo these many years ago) on myth, I seem to remember that (1) a myth is an attempt at an explanation of a (usually natural) phenomenon within a paradigm that is not necessarily scientific in our sense, but one that uses personification, symbols, metaphor, etc. The operative term here is "explanation", and an excellent example of a recent myth is the reason given by the then rulers of the "Peoples' Republic of Germany" for the errection of the infamous "wall": It was built, they said, to keep out capitalist spies, agent-provocateurs, counter-revolutionaries,and other undesirables of the capitalist world. (2) a legend, on the other hand, is at least based on fact and purports to give a factual account of a "real event". Legends can be about people, places, events, etc. Some years ago, I inadvertently gave rise to a legend when I told a student of mine about a comment Barbara Partee (then still "Hall") wrote in the margin of my first syntax paper for her. "The proof of the pudding", she wrote, "is in the eating". Some months later, another student maintained staunchly that Chomsky had written this sentence in a paper in which he was, once again, attacking the (neo)Bloomfildians. I leave it to the readers of the present discussion to determine which of the contributions were on the "myth" side and which on the "legend" side, even though, obviously, a clear-cut distintion is not always possible since we do invoke legends to explain purported facts. Peter MenzelMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue