Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rich
I think you guys are just trying to confuse a senile old geezer. 
At least with Nihonto a long sword is a daito; and sub-type if it's a katana, uchikatana or tachi. Which is determined by its mountings. Much easier nomenclature.
Rich |
Rich,
I would heartily dispute your self description! and note that the understanding of Nihonto in itself is a paramount achievement which frankly reaches the complicated level of a science. With this, it is quite understandable that it is very specific in classifications and nomenclature, and extremely intimidating for collectors of sharp pointy things other than these amazing Japanese swords, including me of course.
With the subject of names for tulwar, shamshir etc. while the others have given remarkable and well detailed analysis of what we have long called 'the name game' here, I will add my own views.
Tulwar is an Indian term for sword, not necessarily otherwise specified, and can be applied to not only the familiar version with 'Indo-Persian' disc pommel hilt, but sabers with shamshir style hilts. In Indian parlance, even the Native cavalry sabers of British regulation pattern may be called 'tulwars'.
The shamshir is with distinctive hilt as you describe, is of course a Persian sword, and again, a term applied widely to sabers with other style hilts as described in Persian parlance.
As Mahratt has concisely noted, description rather than term is best in accurately classifying a weapon where such questions may be at hand.
With Persian script, this was of course common with the profound influences of Persia in the courts of Northern and Mughal India, as well as Bukhara.
As Jens has illustrated, the inscribing of inside of knuckleguard seems to have been a convention popular in N. India, and with gurmukhi script as was often found in Sikh weapons.