Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

Bob A · 20th August 2017, 06:39 AM

A remarkable linguistic study, and a clarion call for controversy, elegantly wrapped in the scholastic tradition, deserves the praise that has been laid at its figurative feet.

The "name game" exists in any number of disparate fields, most frequently when objects or concepts in one culture are studied by investigators in another. It is especially rampant in areas in which the original issue has been clouded by time, or the lack of any meaningful opportunity to learn from the originators. Traditions lapse, old people die, and are replaced by youngsters no longer vested in the old ways.

The search for karud is not as hampered as it might be, as there remain living exemplars of the originating culture, although language changes over time, both in vocabulary and pronunciation, and in the changes in the object or issue. Still, it cannot be denied that in this field, as in so many others, words and ideas have been taken out of context, and have formed a sort of meta-language, filled with descriptive terms unrecognisable by those who originated the object under study.

Insofar as in most cases, language does not alter function nor reality, but merely attempts to communicate information, unless and until proper correlations can be discovered and put into use, we will continue to find ourselves enmeshed in the inaccuracies introduced by those who came before, who often lacked to information that was developed subsequent to their original research. It should definitely be noted that in many cases this subsequent information would not exist at all, had they not ventured into the unknown.

All the above merely serves as a long-winded replacement for a simple concept, which I can not claim as my own; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

A. G. Maisey · 20th August 2017, 06:54 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg

Bob A · 20th August 2017, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg

OK, I'm good with that.

Kubur · 20th August 2017, 07:48 AM

Hi,

As Jim said, it's an old debate not only for the karud.
I remember the kattara story...

Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear.
I think no one can deny or contest that.
To me the whole thing can be just a footnote.
Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel.

Now should we use karud or not?
I really don't know.
It's healthy to be open to changes.
If something is wrong, why not to say it and to move forward.

But then we will have a problem with terminology as Estrech said.
Europeans spent the last three hundred years to write Encyclopaedia and dictionnaries. If we look at regional terminology and local linguistic we will end with something strange.
What you will do with the khanjar and kindjal, should we call them only khanjar or only kindjal or simply daggers?
kaskara, nimcha.... same story should we call them simply saifs or just swords?
What about a pala? I know what a pala is, but I also know that it's a Greek word and probably all the pala were called kilij by the Ottomans.
The same with Moukhala and others... Do you know that most of koummiyas were called khanjers?

To me it's an endless and useless debate, you probably noticed that I normaly don't participate to these debates. So keep our vocabulary but just explain why and how to use it...

estcrh · 20th August 2017, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear.
I think no one can deny or contest that.
To me the whole thing can be just a footnote.
Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel.

I completely agree, any scholarly books, articles etc should mention the historical incorrectness of any term in common use which has a documented history but in daily life I do not think this effects anything significant.

20th August 2017, 06:39 AM	#1
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 436	A remarkable linguistic study, and a clarion call for controversy, elegantly wrapped in the scholastic tradition, deserves the praise that has been laid at its figurative feet. The "name game" exists in any number of disparate fields, most frequently when objects or concepts in one culture are studied by investigators in another. It is especially rampant in areas in which the original issue has been clouded by time, or the lack of any meaningful opportunity to learn from the originators. Traditions lapse, old people die, and are replaced by youngsters no longer vested in the old ways. The search for karud is not as hampered as it might be, as there remain living exemplars of the originating culture, although language changes over time, both in vocabulary and pronunciation, and in the changes in the object or issue. Still, it cannot be denied that in this field, as in so many others, words and ideas have been taken out of context, and have formed a sort of meta-language, filled with descriptive terms unrecognisable by those who originated the object under study. Insofar as in most cases, language does not alter function nor reality, but merely attempts to communicate information, unless and until proper correlations can be discovered and put into use, we will continue to find ourselves enmeshed in the inaccuracies introduced by those who came before, who often lacked to information that was developed subsequent to their original research. It should definitely be noted that in many cases this subsequent information would not exist at all, had they not ventured into the unknown. All the above merely serves as a long-winded replacement for a simple concept, which I can not claim as my own; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

20th August 2017, 06:54 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg

20th August 2017, 07:48 AM	#4
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Hi, As Jim said, it's an old debate not only for the karud. I remember the kattara story... Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear. I think no one can deny or contest that. To me the whole thing can be just a footnote. Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel. Now should we use karud or not? I really don't know. It's healthy to be open to changes. If something is wrong, why not to say it and to move forward. But then we will have a problem with terminology as Estrech said. Europeans spent the last three hundred years to write Encyclopaedia and dictionnaries. If we look at regional terminology and local linguistic we will end with something strange. What you will do with the khanjar and kindjal, should we call them only khanjar or only kindjal or simply daggers? kaskara, nimcha.... same story should we call them simply saifs or just swords? What about a pala? I know what a pala is, but I also know that it's a Greek word and probably all the pala were called kilij by the Ottomans. The same with Moukhala and others... Do you know that most of koummiyas were called khanjers? To me it's an endless and useless debate, you probably noticed that I normaly don't participate to these debates. So keep our vocabulary but just explain why and how to use it...