Is this a Firangi ?

[Nihl]

Jim, thank you so much for your response. I am well aware that you are indeed very passionate and experienced with these things, and again I must state that my previous post wasn’t intended to be a direct personal attack, but an open letter inspired by much of what you had said. Some of your remarks are things I’ve heard not only numerous times on this forum (said by many more people than just you), but also innumerable times elsewhere on the internet, in other forums, in the comments of youtube videos, etc. Your reply just tipped the iceberg for me, so to speak, so it only felt appropriate for me to finally say something, especially in a thread that has specifically become name-game related.

I’ll be honest with you that most of what you’ve written in your replies to me are things I either agree with or think work as examples of what I’ve been talking about, and as such I don’t have much to say about them here. I think they illustrate well how humans will sometimes completely change or damage things (depending on your viewpoint) without realizing what they’re doing, for better or worse. Ignorance is bliss, as the platitude goes. This goes both ways too, as I can’t comment on the linguistics disputes for sword types I am unfamiliar with (i.e. ignorant of ).

In regards to the katar/jamdhar example though, so far as I’m aware katar actually is the appropriate endonym to use. To the best of my knowledge, Jamdhar is of persian origin, or derived from persian root words, while katar comes from the Tamil kattari, which was then carried into sanskrit, before ending up as katar in modern day hindi. I am of course just parroting what I’ve read online though, without having done my own research, so I would be totally open to anything that proves the opposite.

I would contend with your khyber knife point, as indeed I think the colloquial term is quite silly, and would prefer using salawar/siliwar yatagan (a lot of the larger examples actually do have a forward-and-back curving tip fyi - it’s hard to see but it’s definitely there), however I am unfamiliar with the nuances of that discussion so I’ll stay out of it.

Like I said in my last reply, I consider all of these (generally) long winded terms to function as the “scientific names” for these items. I have nothing against anyone that uses the collector-held colloquialisms for them in casual conversation, however I only think it’s appropriate to use the scientific names when we are discussing these things seriously, which I’d like to think is at least part of what this forum allows us to do - seriously analyze and discuss arms and armor without having to exclusively use layman's terms.

I believe the “true” names for any sword type should be a mixture of those used natively and originally (i.e. as close to the days when they were actually used as possible), mixed with a healthy amount of brevity so as to not make any particular term too jargon-centric and alienate those less invested in the field.

Firangi is a perfectly fine term, however its definition I find to be too imprecise, and as such the native Marathi term, dhop, seems like a perfectly adequate and necessary replacement.

While I’m aware Laz bichaq was perhaps the closest, most precise term to use for this previously enigmatic sword type, it (the term) is of a turkish origin, and does not respect the native users of these swords, who were predominantly laz (although I’m aware these swords indeed spread across transcaucasia and were allegedly used by kurds and armenians). As such, in accordance with my own research, I prefer the native term Lazuri Didi Xami, which I think when shortened to just Didi Xami (keeping in mind the principle of brevity), is a completely acceptable name that does justice to the ethnic minority group(s) that wielded it.

Anyways back to directly responding: the “fear and ignorance, and the complete opposite of willingness to learn”-part was, I assure you, not at all intended at you, Jim. Again, like I wrote at the beginning of my reply here, I am well aware of your credentials. My intent was never to insult you with this statement, rather it was my attempt to psychoanalyze (perhaps poorly) the exact reason as to why it would seem to me so many people stubbornly hold on to terms that are otherwise antiquated or outdated.

I repeat myself - I do not believe you to be fearful, ignorant, or unwilling to learn about new terms Jim. My comment was intended at those stubborn forum members that insist on never updating their vocabulary because they’ve grown fond of some poorly transliterated terms written nearly a century ago by one orientalist or another. I feel as though, if and when we can do so, discerning the native, non-loan-word terms for sword, knife, or "edged implement" in general should always be prioritized over the "traditional" terms we use in the ethnographic A&A field. My issue here is with those that insist on clinging to the latter, rather than engaging in the adventure that is finding the former.

[Jim McDougall]

Nihl, in kind, I thank you for this well written explanation which I think we can agree has clearly come from a misunderstanding. As noted, I think we are actually in accord on most of the points discussed.
I will say that I do understand your frustration, as I cannot tell you how many times over these many years I have felt the same when my efforts in possible situations involving certain aspects involving particular weapons or elements were met with that 'what difference does it make' attitude.
I suppose that eventually I simply 'put that to work' and pushed harder to find the answers.

With the 'name game' (as we have come to call it over the years) in looking back at old threads, and ironically some which are again concurrent, despite the carnage, some surprisingly useful facts and material have come up and added a great deal to understanding these terms.

I feel that much in the manner of a dictionary, showing alternate terms and definitions, it is important to associate the number of terms to describe the weapon in discussion. Quite honestly these collective terms can often add intriguing dimension to the history of the weapon form. Again, the list of examples and analogies would be remarkably lengthy.

While many of us continue using long established terms in discussion for the sake of semantics and understanding, we often acknowledge the proper term alongside. For example the Maghrebi saber known commonly as nim'cha, which is a misnomer in itself, is locally known in Morocco as the sa'if, thus often we term it Moroccan sa'if.

Again, this becomes a long and complex discussion. However, I think that if we can continue the use of long established terms (though technically incorrect) in colloquial discussions, while making note of proper or alternate terms we can safely maintain the integrity of same to achieve good result.

Again, thank you for putting all this in perspective. This topic has come a long, hard way, and we have a long way to go. Not necessarily to change the existing history and terminology, but to enhance it with necessary revisions without disrupting the flow of the collective material extant.