Talk:Oral literature

message: It is written that it is not plausible that oral literature is frequently consistent, on the basis of ONE counter example (Malian 'text'). That is equivalent to saying it is implausible that apples are frequently green, since I have seen a single red apple.
Not only is it a nonsense statement, it is not even cited, so is probably original research. DELETE please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.68.140 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not plausible" 

message: "Orature" strikes me as a horrible neologism, but I see it gets 31,000 Google hits, so I guess it has passed into the language. I suppose oral literature, which seems more natural to me, is oxymoronic, but it gets 269,000 Google hits, so isn't that where our article should be, with "orature" as a redirect? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. 'Oral literature' is not only more natural, it's more common also in academic literature. — mark ✎ 11:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If one understands literature to be something that is written (see, for example, the definition "collection of texts" in the corresponding article), then the qualification of oral signifying unwritten may create an oxymoronic juxtaposition. Man vyi 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought.  But even while the etymology of the term would imply "letters" (i.e. alphabets) and "writing," there is nothing in "collection of texts" to imply those are written texts.  As it stands, I find the corresponding entry ethnocentric, and I'm going to try to make it more NPOV.  See what you think and let me know.  Thanks for answering.  Bruxism 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason why I was quite content with the article's previous location at Orature (not that I'm suggesting that it need go back). Man vyi 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The description "oral literature" is in fact "oxymoronic", or perhaps more straightforwardly: It is a contradiction in terms. Literature indicates writing, words, text. The term "text", in its etymology is "from Medieval Latin textus 'the Scriptures, text, treatise,' in Late Latin 'written account, content, characters used in a document'. (See the Online Etymology Dictionary.) The entry should be merged with "Oral Tradition" since that is what spoken stories are and because "orature" is a grotesque invention, well-intended, but seems a work-around that does not quite work. Sych (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The following is most confusing: "Oral literature or folk literature operates in the sphere of the spoken (oral) word as literature operates in the domain of the written word." What is meant here by "literature"? the article "Literature" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica has this: "To use the word writing when describing literature is itself misleading, for one may speak of “oral literature” or “the literature of preliterate peoples”. I am currently along with James343e trying to improve the literature article. I came here seeking clarity. Rwood128 (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Orature" vs. "Oral literature"

message: How is the term "oral literature" oxymoronic? Bruxism 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one understands literature to be something that is written (see, for example, the definition "collection of texts" in the corresponding article), then the qualification of oral signifying unwritten may create an oxymoronic juxtaposition. Man vyi 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought.  But even while the etymology of the term would imply "letters" (i.e. alphabets) and "writing," there is nothing in "collection of texts" to imply those are written texts.  As it stands, I find the corresponding entry ethnocentric, and I'm going to try to make it more NPOV.  See what you think and let me know.  Thanks for answering.  Bruxism 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason why I was quite content with the article's previous location at Orature (not that I'm suggesting that it need go back). Man vyi 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The description "oral literature" is in fact "oxymoronic", or perhaps more straightforwardly: It is a contradiction in terms. Literature indicates writing, words, text. The term "text", in its etymology is "from Medieval Latin textus 'the Scriptures, text, treatise,' in Late Latin 'written account, content, characters used in a document'. (See the Online Etymology Dictionary.) The entry should be merged with "Oral Tradition" since that is what spoken stories are and because "orature" is a grotesque invention, well-intended, but seems a work-around that does not quite work. Sych (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The following is most confusing: "Oral literature or folk literature operates in the sphere of the spoken (oral) word as literature operates in the domain of the written word." What is meant here by "literature"? the article "Literature" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica has this: "To use the word writing when describing literature is itself misleading, for one may speak of “oral literature” or “the literature of preliterate peoples”. I am currently along with James343e trying to improve the literature article. I came here seeking clarity. Rwood128 (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxymoronic? 

message: The article uses the word "folk" severla times. But oral literature is not always folk literature. I don't have all the references for the following at hand now (hope to come back to this later) but: in several cultures, there where experts for it who had to memorize large texts. In celtic culture, the druids had to memorize thousands of verses of sacred texts (all lost now because it was forbidden to write them down). The works of Homer are thought to have been transmitted oraly for a long time before being written down, something only possible with experts. The poetry of the Icelandic edda was memorized and orally transmitted by a group of experts for poetry called skalds. The culture of Mali had the griots, professional Poets and singers. The Tibetans had the sGrund mkhan, the masters of tradition etc. So there were professional keepers of the oral literatures. Oral literature developed and passed on by such experts is not flok culture. the contrary, it must be equated to classical literature.Nannus 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point -- there is definitely a "professional" oral transmission distinct from informal folk transmissions. --lquilter 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will argue with this.  "Folk," according to scholars, does not necessarily mean informal or poor in quality.  So the implication that "experts for it who had to memorize large texts" were not folk does not make sense, from a scholarly point of view.  If as you suggest, Nannus, that "oral literature developed and passed on by such experts is not f[ol]k culture," then why are the people who study that literature as oral performance - rather than as classical texts - called "folklorists?" Classical epic poetry is but one genre of folklore.  Myth is another.  Bruxism 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral literature is not necessarily "folk" literature 

message: The discussion in the article is quite confused, but as far as the origins of the English phrase go, but by early 19th cent. it is not unusual (for example, "Essay on American Language and Literature," North-American Review 1:3 [1815] 307-314, uses the phrase twice).  By the 1880s it is frequent in scholarly journals, and in the 20th cent. it is a normal term of art.  There is a whole chapter on it in the Cambridge History of English and American literature (1907–21); not necessary, or possible, to attribute it to Chadwick or Parry. Rgr09 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the term oral literature