On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

Emanuel · 13th October 2015, 11:49 PM

Hi Mercenary,

Difficult not to fall in the trap of phonetically similar words.

Have a look at Dr. Ann Feuerbach's summary on the research done to date on the word pulad:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=502

Emanuel

Mercenary · 14th October 2015, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Hi Mercenary,
Difficult not to fall in the trap of phonetically similar words.
Emanuel

Hi Emanuel
Why did you decide that it is any "phonetically similar words"?
It was said that the term Phaulādī is directly related with the word "flower". As well as the term "Phul" in "Phul-katara". What else? "Phul" means "fulad". It's obvious. Isn't it?

Quote:

but years ago Robert Elgood showed me a manuscript, and if I remember correctly it was a glossery over the Indian weapon names.

You mean a table with lines of weapons from the Jaipur museum? I translated it. I specifically went there from time to time in three years. Nothing particularly interesting. All daggers are "choree", all sabres are "tulwar". But there are some interesting moments. I will work on it.

You all are right to say that the terms that we now have in respected books in the main are the confusion of the languages. This is what I write in my article about. But it is not just confusion of nouns and names. It is also mix of verbs)))

Mercenary · 14th October 2015, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Have a look at Dr. Ann Feuerbach's summary on the research done to date on the word pulad:

O! I have realized what the problem is. I am sorry. It is not your fault. In India a lot of curators of museums and sekligarhs consider that pulad is फौलादा (Phaulādī). That is fact.

Jens Nordlunde · 14th October 2015, 09:46 PM

Mercenary,
I think you have got it all wrong.
You dont know what Robert showed me. It was a manuscript of about 500 pages, and it had nothing top do with his new book on the Jaipur collection.
Maybe I am not too bright, but wait to say so till you can prove it.
Jens

Mercenary · 14th October 2015, 10:17 PM

Jens
I am sorry I was thinking about pictures from Jaipur museum where depicted all of types of weapons that were in Jaipur armory. With their names.
It is a pity that we know nothing about a manuscript with over names of weapons. Science requires openness. I am sorry.

Emanuel · 14th October 2015, 10:49 PM

Hi Mercenary,

My comment was concerning the similarity between the sound of the words. You presented a dissection of phauladi (fulad, pulad) as originating from "phul"-flower. Other researchers dissected it to the roots "pu" "lauha" - purified iron, which is a close description of crucible steel.

On the phul-katara, Elgood includes a few lovely examples in his catalogue of the Jaipur Court. They all have floral hilts. This fits the definition of "phul"-flower.
So phul-katara just refers to a dagger with floral hilt.

Cheers!
Emanuel

Mercenary · 15th October 2015, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Hi Mercenary,
Other researchers dissected it to the roots "pu" "lauha" - purified iron, which is a close description of crucible steel.

There is a problem. Neither Jahangir nor Abdul Aziz nor present-day sekligarhs whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers (who worked in the court armories still) never read the articles of "other researchers" or some researchers else or any Internet forums )). They just say "fauladi". That is all.
You know what Indians added to the crucibles with the iron? What was considered as a secret? If you know, then you will understand why a crucible steel was called "flower steel", "fruit steel". It was magic for Indians then.

Mercenary · 15th October 2015, 12:46 PM

Ok. No need to read my article or to study sources or to go to India to learn something. Let's play a game. A small equation with one unknown for primary schools:
[jeweled dagger WITH phull-katara] = [dagger decorated with gems] PLUS [X-blade].
It is known that dagger has gems (in which zone a dagger can has the gems?). And it is known that KATARA is a blade.
JEWELED DAGGER WITH SOME BLADE. And wherein "phul" relates to steel. Well?

ariel · 15th October 2015, 01:03 AM

AFAIK, pulad or pulad is just steel ( see al Kindi). Damascus steel ( wootz) is pulad-e johardar, or just Johar in Arabic ( see the Saudi Arabian book).
For some reasons, northern consumers of Indian/Persian wootz adopted an abbreviated version of the full definition and wootz became bulat etc.

Thus, IMHO, Indo-Persian terms Fulad/ pulad /phulad have nothing to do with wootz ( they may, in Russia or the Caucasus), and your Phul-katara is just a blade ( wootz or not), but with a flower for a pommel. As noted by Emanuel, see Elgood's book.
Phonetic and spelling similarities can play dirty games with non-specialists :
" a thief stole my wife's stole", " You might unleash your might" etc.

Anyone wants to correct me?

Jens Nordlunde · 16th October 2015, 04:45 PM

To my opinion the forum members interest in the subject is admirable, but I do find the criticism of Marcenary's idea a bit overdone.

Mercenary has come up with an idea. So let him work on it, and when it is done, and you still want to criticize it, you can do so – but I find it is a bit early to do so now.

Jens

Helleri · 16th January 2016, 05:30 AM

I think something important to keep in mind along these lines is that derivation is not necessarily tied to definition. As definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive; Whatever the common lexical understanding of a word is at any given time and place, is essentially that words definition for a given time and place.

So even though Gladius is just what a roman may have said to refer to a sword generically. Today the words association with a distinctly roman sword in common lexical understanding sort of overrides the need to delineate with words like mainz or pompie. At least in casual conversation wherein 'I know, that you know, what I mean'. And these modernized gross-generalizations and misnomers are actually helpful for expedient communication.

Even so delving a little deeper is always good to do for those interested in order to better inform deeper discussion. Just saying...'Even if it was so doesn't mean it is so' as definitions can and do change over time (given that they are just descriptions of the common and current usage of a word).

13th October 2015, 11:49 PM	#1
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=502 Hi Mercenary, Difficult not to fall in the trap of phonetically similar words. Have a look at Dr. Ann Feuerbach's summary on the research done to date on the word pulad: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=502 Emanuel Last edited by Emanuel; 14th October 2015 at 12:07 AM.

14th October 2015, 09:46 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Mercenary, I think you have got it all wrong. You dont know what Robert showed me. It was a manuscript of about 500 pages, and it had nothing top do with his new book on the Jaipur collection. Maybe I am not too bright, but wait to say so till you can prove it. Jens

14th October 2015, 10:17 PM	#5
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	Jens I am sorry I was thinking about pictures from Jaipur museum where depicted all of types of weapons that were in Jaipur armory. With their names. It is a pity that we know nothing about a manuscript with over names of weapons. Science requires openness. I am sorry.

14th October 2015, 10:49 PM	#6
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Hi Mercenary, My comment was concerning the similarity between the sound of the words. You presented a dissection of phauladi (fulad, pulad) as originating from "phul"-flower. Other researchers dissected it to the roots "pu" "lauha" - purified iron, which is a close description of crucible steel. On the phul-katara, Elgood includes a few lovely examples in his catalogue of the Jaipur Court. They all have floral hilts. This fits the definition of "phul"-flower. So phul-katara just refers to a dagger with floral hilt. Cheers! Emanuel

15th October 2015, 12:46 PM	#8
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	Ok. No need to read my article or to study sources or to go to India to learn something. Let's play a game. A small equation with one unknown for primary schools: [jeweled dagger WITH phull-katara] = [dagger decorated with gems] PLUS [X-blade]. It is known that dagger has gems (in which zone a dagger can has the gems?). And it is known that KATARA is a blade. JEWELED DAGGER WITH SOME BLADE. And wherein "phul" relates to steel. Well?

15th October 2015, 01:03 AM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	AFAIK, pulad or pulad is just steel ( see al Kindi). Damascus steel ( wootz) is pulad-e johardar, or just Johar in Arabic ( see the Saudi Arabian book). For some reasons, northern consumers of Indian/Persian wootz adopted an abbreviated version of the full definition and wootz became bulat etc. Thus, IMHO, Indo-Persian terms Fulad/ pulad /phulad have nothing to do with wootz ( they may, in Russia or the Caucasus), and your Phul-katara is just a blade ( wootz or not), but with a flower for a pommel. As noted by Emanuel, see Elgood's book. Phonetic and spelling similarities can play dirty games with non-specialists : " a thief stole my wife's stole", " You might unleash your might" etc. Anyone wants to correct me?

16th October 2015, 04:45 PM	#10
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	To my opinion the forum members interest in the subject is admirable, but I do find the criticism of Marcenary's idea a bit overdone. Mercenary has come up with an idea. So let him work on it, and when it is done, and you still want to criticize it, you can do so – but I find it is a bit early to do so now. Jens

16th January 2016, 05:30 AM	#11
Helleri Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Chino, CA. Posts: 219	I think something important to keep in mind along these lines is that derivation is not necessarily tied to definition. As definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive; Whatever the common lexical understanding of a word is at any given time and place, is essentially that words definition for a given time and place. So even though Gladius is just what a roman may have said to refer to a sword generically. Today the words association with a distinctly roman sword in common lexical understanding sort of overrides the need to delineate with words like mainz or pompie. At least in casual conversation wherein 'I know, that you know, what I mean'. And these modernized gross-generalizations and misnomers are actually helpful for expedient communication. Even so delving a little deeper is always good to do for those interested in order to better inform deeper discussion. Just saying...'Even if it was so doesn't mean it is so' as definitions can and do change over time (given that they are just descriptions of the common and current usage of a word).