Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.
Why "pseudo"?!
Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!
Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!
 |
Hi Marius,
Very well noted, and if you might briefly look at my post #48, you will see that I mentioned the likely reason for the 'psuedo' appellation in this case with the reference mentioned. I also noted that the reason that classification never became used elsewhere afterwards was because it was not in keeping with the proper use of the word as an adjustment and thus renders it a moot point.
However, as often the case, we 'seniors' such as Ariel and I
sometimes use the term when referring to that particular reference by Iaroslav Lebedynsky from those researches nearly 20 years ago .
I would like to highly commend Ian's outstanding solution to bring the shashka discussion to its own table on another thread so as not to continue clouding the meter of this thread. Each of these topics have promising merit, so I hope you and others will join over there as I hope to as well.