I must add my own perspective on the apparant source of contention here, as I was the one who initiated the thread 'requesting' that when asking for translation assistance, the entire weapon be shown along with the detail showing the inscription or characters to be assessed.
The reason for this is that, as Jens has well noted, the context in which the inscription appears indeed does very much often carry important clues which relate to translation of inscriptions.
In many cases this more comprehensive information offers those who are working at assisting with what sometimes, actually often, can be be extremely esoteric material. It is distinctly a courtesy to assist those one is calling upon to offer them all help possible as well. I was once scolded severely by a very well known academic figure in an extremely prestigious institution when I asked him for help identifying an unusual sword, and was ill advised by a colleague not to tell him about what research I had already completed so as not to set preconceived notions in his response. This was not only foolish advice but profoundly discourteous, and when I inadvertantly noted my previous research in subsequent communication he pretty much exploded, and noted my omission had cost him many extra hours of precious time.
We openly offer assistance here in our goal of sharing information and learning together, in order to advance the study of these weapons and preserve thier history. To omit the context of sometimes important detail in inscriptions found on these weapons denies the members and readers the opportunity to learn in many cases. This is particularly true with ethnographic weapons, as obviously the nature of the weapon carrying the inscription can often have distinct bearing.
For example, in this case the weapon is described as a 'pesh kabz' which is a dagger typically known to be indiginous to the northern regions in India. Here the inscription appears to be in a southern language, whether Kannada or associated dialect, and tells us that the diffusion of these was indeed that far south. Obviously we already know this is the case, as with many Indian weapon forms, but it not only bolsters the support for this case, but can sometimes even identify regional attribution and important date establishing the period for the weapons presence there.
I will say that I often find it disagreeable when someone posts a weapon, in a 'here it is' kind of post with simply photos and cursory note on its type, mostly a thread title. If one has a weapon to inquire on, it does seem reasonable that as weapons collectors, one usually has books or references and would as a matter of simple curiosity at least tried to discover what the weapon is. I have the utmost regard for the majority who do post here and follow that process, as well as including the information at hand thus far and actually composing a well founded query. Since these are discussion forums, I consider laconic and presumptive blurbs less than helpful and in degree discourteous, as if those to whom the query is directed are not worthy of the requestors 'valuable' time. I consider everyone who posts here, and follows these simple elements of courtesy more than worth the many and countless hours I spend researching in order to respond in any way I can.
Thats what its about guys, courtesy and respect, two words I try very much to live by. Having said that, I would like to say that, on a different subject, the apparant misunderstanding here between Jens and Alan is more a result of interpretation of the situation at hand, and as often the case, the unfortunate lack of qualifying demeanor which is often a factor in todays computer oriented interchange. These two gentlemen are among the most highly respected members here, and I commend them both for the impressive and gentlemanly discourse they have observed in handling this misunderstanding.
Also, Chris and Emanuel, thank you both for the outstanding assistance with this translation and excellent participation. Well done everybody!!!!
Very best regards,
Jim