What is a KARUD?!

Jim McDougall · 7th August 2016, 01:18 AM

Marius, I must say I admire your zeal in your approach in the study and investigation of ethnographic weapons in pro active participation in threads and discussions!
In the case of what we 'seniors' have come to regard as 'the name game' however, the discussion of most of these linguistic, transliterated or otherwise multiple errored terms usually becomes specious fodder for veiled arguments(=debates).

There is little agreement, if any, on the correct or proper use of the terms for many specific weapon forms in the ethnographic arena, and it is compounded as noted, by perpetuation in many long venerable references.

Though it would be great to have a sort of 'thesaurus' with a compendium of these many terms, it would be highly improbable as there are as many names for these as there are variations of all, and the task becomes almost infinite.

As far as collecting arms and the study of forms as it has been known since the somewhat formalizing of the pursuit through the 19th century, a rather informal collective glossary of terms has been established. While these are largely broadly accepted as descriptive terms, many are admittedly not entirely proper or correct.
As a medium for discussion however, and leaving semantics aside, it has proven best to use these as 'working' terms to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

From a scholarly point of view however, it is certainly prudent, if not advisable to learn which terms are flawed linguistically, and if possible, the correct or alternate terms. The reason for this is that in the study of weapons historically, it is important to understand which terms might have been used at a certain time, in certain regions, for a certain form. This may be complicated ethnographically as often, numerous languages may be used there.
When we are investigating a weapon without advantage of some sort of depiction, we must rely on descriptions, and terms, and there is the rub.

With that, I hope I can emphasize, in these kinds of matters.....nobody is right, and nobody is wrong.......and both often in many cases.
There is absolutely no reason for argument or debate in discussing subjects as dynamic and subjective as with these terms, and the weapons they are used to refer to.
It is more important to view instances of use, period, locations etc. as variants and to place them comprehensively as cross referenced as possible.
Perhaps we might find some resolution together toward that 'thesaurus'!!! (if that is the right term

).....maybe I should say dictionary???

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

7th August 2016, 01:18 AM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Marius, I must say I admire your zeal in your approach in the study and investigation of ethnographic weapons in pro active participation in threads and discussions! In the case of what we 'seniors' have come to regard as 'the name game' however, the discussion of most of these linguistic, transliterated or otherwise multiple errored terms usually becomes specious fodder for veiled arguments(=debates). There is little agreement, if any, on the correct or proper use of the terms for many specific weapon forms in the ethnographic arena, and it is compounded as noted, by perpetuation in many long venerable references. Though it would be great to have a sort of 'thesaurus' with a compendium of these many terms, it would be highly improbable as there are as many names for these as there are variations of all, and the task becomes almost infinite. As far as collecting arms and the study of forms as it has been known since the somewhat formalizing of the pursuit through the 19th century, a rather informal collective glossary of terms has been established. While these are largely broadly accepted as descriptive terms, many are admittedly not entirely proper or correct. As a medium for discussion however, and leaving semantics aside, it has proven best to use these as 'working' terms to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. From a scholarly point of view however, it is certainly prudent, if not advisable to learn which terms are flawed linguistically, and if possible, the correct or alternate terms. The reason for this is that in the study of weapons historically, it is important to understand which terms might have been used at a certain time, in certain regions, for a certain form. This may be complicated ethnographically as often, numerous languages may be used there. When we are investigating a weapon without advantage of some sort of depiction, we must rely on descriptions, and terms, and there is the rub. With that, I hope I can emphasize, in these kinds of matters.....nobody is right, and nobody is wrong.......and both often in many cases. There is absolutely no reason for argument or debate in discussing subjects as dynamic and subjective as with these terms, and the weapons they are used to refer to. It is more important to view instances of use, period, locations etc. as variants and to place them comprehensively as cross referenced as possible. Perhaps we might find some resolution together toward that 'thesaurus'!!! (if that is the right term ).....maybe I should say dictionary???