Hi Fearn
Quite Right.
It is all about a generic, with a prevailing necessity for an adding term or context, to make the difference, both in form, purpose and conotation.
One can follow the source of the modern english Sickle, ex-midlle english Sikel, ex-old english Sicol; it derives from latin Sêcula (vulgar Sicila), as Secãre for cutting. Therefore a term of generic base, like calling it a cutter, reason why Plinius used a two word term to refer the intended object by its shape : Dentium Sicas, as it resembled a tooth ( of an hippo ... ).
Passing by Jewish lands, one could admit that the sica for them was a usefull roman generic handy dagger, with no need for a more precise name. The conotation given by romans ( Flavius Josephus ) and others, to perjorate on the guys that used daggers on a massive subversive sense, doesn't apply for the shape or conotation of the piece per se.
Then you get to Rome, when they needed to call a name to the dagger brought by the Thracians; again a double word term: Sica Supina, from supination, a sort of laying bent posture. However Juvenal's double word atribution to this Thracian ( and Dacian ) specific weapon , was twice meaningfull: Falx Supina ... Falx (Falce) being a determined anatomical form , like one in the brains.
Then i eventually pick the term used in (latin tongued) Portugal for Sickle, and the term is Foice, from prior Fouce, obviously the Falx derivation; here intended as a farming tool. When used as a weapon, in medieval times, attached to a long shaft, it had no precise names as popular as simply Fouce ( Sickle), only distinguished by the context. Amazingly the local farmers verb for reaping with the sickle is Segar, as in latin Secãre= cutting with Sica.
In a certain manner it is all entangled, like if languages are globalized for already long time.
Sorry for all the nonsense.
fernando
|