Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

... Come to think of it, a large proportion of names for a shot-bladed weapon in all languages is just a local moniker or a derivative of "knife".

Makes all sense; as short blades were more like basic utensiles rather than weapons, villagers had no name to call them but generally knives. It was the wealthy that spent time naming the different swords.
Trying to establish a paralelism, i have learnt that, when a nation is invaded, the successive conquerors keep on changing the spoken language in the cities, courts and palaces, while the villagers keep speaking their old language; resulting that even nowadays there are in the local language hundreds of common words that have such remote origin.
The Iberian Peninsula was invaded by Romans, Barbarians and Arabs but portuguese (for one) still has remnants of its original language, one similar to the old Hebraic, to the Ugaritic, to the Acadian.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando, your observation is very interesting - and logic as well.
I too think that many names could be local, or spelled the way the Europeans heard it.
Europeans from different countries would likely spell the same weapon in different ways, which may be part of some of our problem.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Fernando, your observation is very interesting - and logic as well.
I too think that many names could be local, or spelled the way the Europeans heard it.
Europeans from different countries would likely spell the same weapon in different ways, which may be part of some of our problem.

That is a good point Jens, Europeans would transliterate the words phonetically, and miss the salient tones and diacritics pertinent.Depending on what language these individuals spoke, their own grammar rules would apply adding that variation to the transliteration.
Compound confusion!

Bob, you are not alone in being confused, as clearly seen in our attempts at clarifying these linguistic dilemmas. As Ibrahiim has well illustrated, many languages in additional to alphabet differences often have radically varied grammatical protocols and pronunciation conventions.

Actually, it is not as much any particular educational deficiency in native groups improperly describing things, including weapons, as it is the human propensity to seek brevity or colloquial words in common parlance.
In casual conversation or communication the use of slang, nicknames or catchy names often take the place of formal.

We could carry this ad hoc course in linguistics as applied to ethnographica ad infinitum in analogies and analysis of grammatical peculiarities. However, the entire purpose of the paper on the karud in the O.P. was to reveal further evidence on the etymology of the term for this dagger form.
It is well understood that this is far from a singular case of transliterated or transposed terms applied to a weapon form, and not necessarily done in the proper sense, or misapplied entirely.

These cases seem simply a litany of 'Hobson-Jobson' type instances where many perhaps improperly applied terms have become colloquial as collectors terms for various ethnographic weapons. As these terms have become firmly emplaced in our literature, it is at this point counter productive and unwarranted to consider revising them, and as has been suggested numerous times, better to simply include this data as historical footnotes in properly cited material in future reference.

[fernando]

Up to now i realized that, not only Europeans but all those who have travelled around the world, had to catch the sound and eventually write about the name of things they met, using their own alphabet; one may imagine arabic speakers, such great travellers, having to convert into their script whatever objects they heard being named by locals. One even has to consider how such names, once being perpetuated by strangers, were result of the perception of simple people or of intelectuals; it is perhaps pertinent to admit that, the name of a sword perceived by illiterate navigator crewmen might be distinct from that picked by one such Ibn Batuta.
Also we may consider that, the earliest the etymon is, the more corrupted it may have been.
And then we have the optional (different) name peoples use to address the same thing, depending on the area of the country where they reside; all of them good, as consuetudinary.
On the other hand and introspecting into the Western side of things, if we pick the consensual 'knife' term, when consulting the Oxford dictionary, the description includes a couple encrypted symbols, linked to Old english after Old teutonic but, for what is worth, it ends up assuming that, the root of the word is of uncertain etymology.
In any case the object called 'knife', as other, when used in other languages may not be a strict 'transfer' of the term to local composition, but one of different provenance.
Spaniards use 'cuchillo' and French use 'coucteau', both appearing to have a more traceable identification, with direct connection to latin 'culltellus'.
Whereas the term selected by Portuguese, 'faca', appears to have incognito parents. Latin 'falcula' being rejected, as well 'falx'; the arab "farkha" offers no plausibilty, as intrinsically appointing to a completely different direction. It is consensually a term certainly introduced by populars, admitedly pre-Roman, and of obscure origin.
Definitely, life of scholars/academics is not easy, having to deal with all these endless riddles; but there are so many living humans out there that, of those, many are that chose to struggle with such problematic tasks. Much easier for those that are pleased by understanding eachother with whatever means; and, in case spoken resources fail ... we can always resort to sign language .
All in all, discussing the nuances of terminology is not counter-productive nor unwarranted; it is imposing their revision that has no sense, instead.

[Jim McDougall]

Perfectly elaborated Fernando, and you have hit the chord pitch perfect. While the linguistics are fascinating, complexity notwithstanding, the point of all this reflects the suggestion placed in the paper of the original post.
This is that a term derived from developmental linguistic engineering, whether intentional or not in the course of evolution to describe a certain object etc. in present and known definition. should be removed.

It is rather like removal of a cornerstone from a structure because the component material is incongruent with the rest of the materials in place. Perhaps not a sufficient analogy and probably arguable if there are architects out there, but I think the point is clear.

We have lived with these misnomers and linguistic misteakes this long, so I agree, leave them in situ (Latin term, impressive yes?)

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...bleave them in situ (Latin term, impressive yes?) ...

Rather impressive, Jim; i guess a peritus linguae latinae wouldn't do it better .
Thank you for giving a hand to compose my previous meaningless catharsis.
And speaking of languages, in order to back myself up with some solid consistence after meddling in this thread with a couple unschooled 'filology' stray shots, i have just acquired this book which shows the significant number of words still used in our vocabulary, based in the original language of my neighborhood, spoken before the Romans stormed the place with their 'linguae'.


.

[kronckew]

Ceterum censeo, when hannibal was organising his army to cross the alps and invade italy to destroy rome, he had to defeat a lot of roman allied tribes in the iberian penninsula, he enlisted the aid of the tribes along the western coast who were famously bellicose and had resisted successfully the roman offers. they ultimately lost, but remain bellicose. and they make fine wines but for them, we all might be speaking french and drinking their rotgut grape juice.