Quote:
|
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arms historian known for his classifications of medieval swords spoke anxiously on how often a type so and so though superceded by the next type was often clouded into its previous as well as following type as the forms were maintained longer in certain areas.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.