Shashka??? Or what ????

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In your post #11, you posted a query asking what determines the name or classification for a sword type.
It is a fair question, as I indicated in my response in #13, and I thought I offered a fair explanation. Either you did not see it or did not consider it to be a valid perspective, so I can see you consider the opinions you dictate here as absolute yet at the same time you observe that none of us ( even DR. Khorasani) holds the 'absolute truth', which is of course fairly put.

Yes Jim, I saw your reply at post #11 and as I fully agreed with it, I had nothing to add or ague against.

However, I continued to support my logic and asked for the logical explanation of the opposing idea, so I could learn something new, as I failed to see any consistent logic in naming the very same blade shamshir whether it bears a Persian or Indian hilt, and Kilij when it bears a Turkish hilt. And I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.

Now the rest of your comment (that I didn't quote) sheds much light on this subject as it offers a completely diferent perspective of the inconsistencies I observed. However, as a mechanical engineer, I find difficult to accept that other criteria and not pure logic, may decide whether a blade is named one way or another, and names are not mathematical descriptors but words of convenience. So in the end a sword may bear a name when viewed from the tip of the blade, and another one, when viewed from the hilt.

Well, I guess I'll have to get over and live with it...

After all, we can't put everything into a clearly defined mathematical equation...

But this doesn't mean we should stop trying!

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

...I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.
...

the classic example is the spanish 'falcata', a made-up name from the mid 19c used by a historian to differentiate it from the classic greek kopis, which it was a variant used in greek colonies, of course. the name stuck and we are stuck with it now too.

a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by kronckew

a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

Thank you!

(PS: the locals are right... Until you find out they use modern terms)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Yes Jim, I saw your reply at post #11 and as I fully agreed with it, I had nothing to add or ague against.

However, I continued to support my logic and asked for the logical explanation of the opposing idea, so I could learn something new, as I failed to see any consistent logic in naming the very same blade shamshir whether it bears a Persian or Indian hilt, and Kilij when it bears a Turkish hilt. And I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.

Now the rest of your comment (that I didn't quote) sheds much light on this subject as it offers a completely diferent perspective of the inconsistencies I observed. However, as a mechanical engineer, I find difficult to accept that other criteria and not pure logic, may decide whether a blade is named one way or another, and names are not mathematical descriptors but words of convenience. So in the end a sword may bear a name when viewed from the tip of the blade, and another one, when viewed from the hilt.

Well, I guess I'll have to get over and live with it...

After all, we can't put everything into a clearly defined mathematical equation...

But this doesn't mean we should stop trying!

Well that explains a lot, you are a mechanical engineer! and clearly your world does rely on pretty much rigid rules and axioms as deviations would produce I am sure often undesirable if not disastrous results.

In the more literary subjectivity of terms used descriptively, there is a wide berth for the application of names for things which again, I noted as very much depending on the circumstances. I must admit feeling a bit of frustration at times over the many years of researching arms when I could not really put an item in one box or another in classification.
Even Oakeshott, who was a foremost arms historian known for his classifications of medieval swords spoke anxiously on how often a type so and so though superceded by the next type was often clouded into its previous as well as following type as the forms were maintained longer in certain areas.

Again, it comes down to describing an item as best as you can, with the most apparent designator accompanied by any mitigating or variant possibilities . It is not always neat or concise, but any responsible cataloguer or scholar will do so to avoid misperception or misrepresentation.

As most here know, I am seldom shy about using extra words, and often I do so to avoid just those kinds of misunderstanding, as well as trying to be as accurate as possible in what I try to describe. Actually I rather like learning more on the various terms used in descriptions for certain items and collect that data as part of the history of each form. These instances are often intriguing stories in their own right.
That however is the historian in me, while clearly maddening to those more analytical or involved in typology and classification.

Knonckew, thank you for that bit of information on the falcata! I did not know this, and that is pretty interesting !!!
These are the kinds of things I am talking about.

You are right on the fact that we indeed should always endeavor to keep learning, as we always say, more research to follow.

[ariel]

Amusingly, an almost identical argument is conducted as we speak in the thread
"Default Kalis / Kris / Keris Sundang / Solot / Sulok / Suluk"

The same ethnic variability of names, the same overlays of European terminology, the same confusions in spelling/ transliteration , the same firmly held beliefs... :-)))

There are two major schools of Classical Latin in Russia, Moscow and St. Petersburg, and for a couple of centuries they are conducting vicious warfare about proper pronunciation of letter "c" in certain words: as "ts" or as "k". Since native speakers of Roman Latin have all joined the Choire Invisible two millennia ago, final resolution of that momentous clash of the titans is not in the cards in any foreseeable future.

Come to think of it, our arguments are not that much different:-)
However, if we stop being obstinate and open our eyes and ears to the arguments of our opponents, this game becomes a lot of fun and we can learn, - not a whole lot, - at least something new.