Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <seely
linguistlist.org>
This might, after all, lead to an interesting discussion on what a "myth" in science is after all. I would like to remind people that the word "myth" has already been used in a way related to what the initiator of this discussion had in mind. An example would be Roy Andrew Miller's "Japan's Modern Myth. The Language and Beyond" where he relies on previous non-linguistic work in his definition of a myth (in science, that is). More recently, Miller's book inspired V.M. Alpatov to call his book on the history of Marrism in the Soviet Union "Istoriaja odnogo mifa. Marr i Marrizm", where he explicitly refers to Miller and devotes some discussion to why he chose the title. One must say, though, that Miller and Alpatov talk about very, very different phenomena. I'd like to know what others think about this. Stefan Kaufmann Stefan Kaufmann Dept. of Linguistics and CSLI Stanford University http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kaufmannMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue