On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David

Well, old Willy Shakespeare probably said it best.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
...or cut as deep, eh?
Honestly, i do enjoy linguistics to some extent and find it a rather interesting field. However, in the end, how we name a weapon tells us very little about it in the long run. I am far more interested in it's cultural significance, how it was used and maintained, what symbolism might be connected to it aside from its functional use, how in might fit into the sociological hierarchy, etc. than with the actual naming of the thing. In the end names only serve to allow us as collectors to understand what thing we are actually discussing. This can lead to confusion at times as even "correct" names for the same thing can vary from region to region. Often enough the "proper" name for a weapon literally translates into something like "sword" or "knife" anyway. Perhaps we put too much focus on the name game and not enough on the meat of the matter.

This quote and these views are probably the most essential and pertinent words that have been posted in this thread, which as I have said, is on a most intriguing, if not vexing, topic.

In these kinds of discussions I think it is key to exchange ideas as well as supportive data in a very courteous and objective manner. It is good to see discourse like this which prompts contemplation and often better understanding of a very complex topic.
Keep it going and avoid taking anything personally......its actually a pretty phun and phascinating discussion!!!

[Jens Nordlunde]

David,
I find what you wrote very interesting, and very valid, but at the same time I find that the names, like the ones Robert Elgood has given of the same dagger types are important.
One collector concentrates on weapons from one area, and others on weapons from another area. If we know the names used in the different areas we will also know it is the same weapon they are writing about, even without a picture of the weapon.

To the other participating members.
Some collectors are interested in the way the weapons look/where used, while others are interested in the names and the origin of the names, and to my oppinion everyone should be given free hand to follow his interest, and not from the start be met with mistrust - maybe some of us could learn a bit here and there along the road.
Jens

[David]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

One collector concentrates on weapons from one area, and others on weapons from another area. If we know the names used in the different areas we will also know it is the same weapon they are writing about, even without a picture of the weapon.

Well i'm not really sure why this would be particularly important since we all pretty much have the capacity to share images of our weapons from any place in the world in an instant. What we most likely discover in this exercise is that people from one area call that weapon a "sharp pointy piece of metal" in their own dialect while people in another area call it pretty much the same thing in their own dialect.
That said, i was clear that i do find this game of names interesting and their linguistic roots can indeed be fascinating and sometimes even enlightening. However, i am not a linguist and do not pretend be capable of tackling the intricacies of the field enough to be able to distinguish between true root word connections, sound alike only similarities and outright coincidences of arrangements of letters. My ears are always open, however, to those who have a better grasp on this study though i remain skeptical that anyone can make irrefutable connections to most of these word roots we encounter. Even the true experts tend to disagree on their theories. And even if they are absolutely correct, knowing the root words are meaningless if you don't understand the original intent of the culture that used that word when naming that weapon. Usually that can only be met with assumption or speculation. Names and categories seem to have become far too important to many collectors here at the sacrifice of what i personally feel are much more important aspects of the weapons we collect. But as is always the case, to each their own in their direction of study. I just don't believe that naming the thing is the key to understanding it.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by David

I just don't believe that naming the thing is the key to understanding it.

But naming the thing incorrectly is nothing altogether. Without any hope for finding the keys for understanding at all.

[A. G. Maisey]

As Jens has pointed out:- different people have different interests, and the whole of these different interests contribute to a holistic understanding of the item in question, be it an edged weapon or be it a teddy bear.

A correct understanding of the name of a weapon can sometimes indicate, or suggest, the origin of the weapon, or its method of use, or its mode of wear. So even though I am most definitely in the camp of those who oppose the "name game" for its own sake, I do support research that will give us a better understanding of the how, where, and why of a name that is applied to a weapon, or anything else for that matter.

In this thread there seems to be some discussion surrounding the words beginning with "P", "PH" and "F".(Fulad/ pulad /phulad)

Mercenary, since we are reading words that have been romanised from other scripts, would it be possible for you to clarify the pronunciation of words using these spellings?

Another point that perhaps we should take note of is the native tongue of the person who has transliterated from the original script into roman script. The romanised spellings of Javanese and Malay words that were transliterated by Dutch scholars are quite different to the transliterations of the same words by English scholars.

The reason I have raised this question of pronunciation is that I know a Balinese gentleman who studied in India for many years, and whose Indian name is spelt "Phal----", the "Ph" is not pronounced as in English, similar to "F", but rather it is pronounced as an aspirated "P".

[ariel]

Names are important. They are part of the object per se as well as the culture it came from. Remember Grimm Brothers? If you know the name of Rumpelstilskin, you have power over him.
Names were given to the weapons by masters and owners, they often have meanings and clues that the form and the function would miss.
David and Alan , both "krisologists" would undoubtedly bristle an the erroneous use of a name for a tiny hook at the base of a kris, and rightfully so! ( they are probably already seething by now, since I wrote kris, and not keris:-)))

Koummya and shibria are just curved knives, a variants of jambia ( or khanjar:-)
But just their names give us full info about the culture they came from and their appearance.

Stone ( of blessed memory) put Parang Nabur from Banjarmasin and Minasbad from Bicol in the same picture: one of his few obvious errors. Would he do it if he knew that they had different names? But they looked so much alike ! :-)

Names are integral parts of everything around us, they are what we use to orient ourselves in this confusing world. Semasiologists maintain that most of our problems stem from our imprecision in defining what exactly each and every word means.

Ignorance of a correct name, or just mis-spelling can land us in St. Paul, MN instead of San Paulo, Brazil :-)

[A. G. Maisey]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Ariel:- names are important.

In fact, I'll go further than this:- words are important.

Words are used to transfer ideas from one person's mind into the mind of another, if our use of words is imprecise all sorts of errors can occur.

Because of this, I can assure you that I will never bristle at an incorrect use, or knowledge of, keris terminology, in fact, I actively encourage the use of English words when we are using the English language as a medium of communication.

The truly important thing is that we understand one another, not that we all understand every minor usage of language.

But I must admit, I do find the pointless use of misunderstood words to be just slightly annoying, most especially so when a good English word will transfer an idea more effectively.

Perhaps the second paragraph of my post #49 may give some indication of my position in this matter of names.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

... Another point that perhaps we should take note of is the native tongue of the person who has transliterated from the original script into roman script. The romanised spellings of Javanese and Malay words that were transliterated by Dutch scholars are quite different to the transliterations of the same words by English scholars.

The reason I have raised this question of pronunciation is that I know a Balinese gentleman who studied in India for many years, and whose Indian name is spelt "Phal----", the "Ph" is not pronounced as in English, similar to "F", but rather it is pronounced as an aspirated "P".

Rather complex indeed Alan, this thing of the written language.
This "Ph" meaning "F" issue is long gone in other written universes.
... If i am allowed to widen this problematic to other languages to which romanized transcriptions are also practiced, should we also take into account that nations, ones more often than other, introduce reforms in their own orthography. In Portugal, like in other countries here around, the Greek digraphs were abandoned and replaced by simple graphemes; these odd names meaning that, for one, the "PH" was replaced by the "F". Thus we have that, we may (and do) have works in our libraries, namely chronicles from the discoveries period, where we either read the same terms with both "Ph" and "F", depending on the date of the publication.


.