--- In cybalist@..., smvd@... wrote:
> So you are implying that the narrative of a love affair between
> celestial bodies, then, is there just there for pretty words' sake?
[skipped]
Dear Martin,
Thank you for the recommendations.
Not being even an informed dilettant in folkloristics as a branch of
science, I can't fruitfully discuss such a topic with a professional.
Need I mention that I don't think folklore exists as an abstract form
of art not related to the ethnos' mythology and other ways of self-
actualization. I would be very grateful for any information on the
book(s) where folkloristics' methodologies, paradigms and standard
procedures (like, eg, a minimal pairs method for phoneme's
identification in linguistics) were presented (Puhvel in
his 'Comparative Mythology' consistently makes such reservations
as 'the subject is rather amorphous and changeable', 'not trying to
generalize' etc).
What makes me rather sceptical on Baltic and Slavic pantheon
reconstruction is a rather scarce direct evidence, which triggered
the practice of gap-filling by extrapolation from everything at hand.
Of course the problem is not in using implicit evidence as such, but
rather in the fact that such a reconstruction was too often carried
on unprofessionally, and, unfortunately, I'm not aware of any
strictly sciencific methodologies to ensure reliable results.
Sergei