Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[A. G. Maisey]

I do believe that it has now been established that the romanised spellings "kard", and "karud" both represent the same object name when that name is written in the original script.

In fact, in language of origin, both these spellings refer to the same object.

Can anybody explain to me why it is that both spellings cannot be accepted, and used equally?

My field is not kards, karuds, khards or anything similar, but those of us who play with keris have exactly this same situation, there are innumerable ways of spelling "keris":- kris, cris, creese, are the most common, then there are the terms used in keris bearing cultures, words which bear no visible relationship to "keris".

But when Players with Keris talk amongst themselves, it doesn't seem to matter what word is used to refer to the object, we still understand one another.

In this Forum, and nowhere else to my knowledge, an artificial distinction has been drawn between the spelling "keris" and "kris". Keris refers to the dagger form, "kris" refers to the sword form, mostly from the Southern Philippines. Both these forms are by any academic definition keris --- or if we prefer "kris" --- but for purposes of discussion here we have this artificial, but useful, distinction, useful, because it has been decided that the sword version really belongs in the Forum that discusses swords. Let's call it an administrative decision.

When we look at the English language, we find one major spelling variation, that is between American English and British English, some words have two, or sometimes more, different spellings, but they are still the same word and still carry the same broad meaning, although, admittedly, meanings can vary according to specific societal usage, especially implied meanings.

There is a great deal of flexibility in the way language is used. Does it really matter if I spell a word using the UK spelling, and somebody else spells it using the American spelling?

It is general practice in English, and in many other languages, that where there are variations within a category of object, that variation is identified by use of an adjective. Kards and karuds are the same object but can possess a variation, thus in accord with general usage of the English language we would normally add an adjective to identify this variation.

Why is it that both spellings of this word cannot be used equally and the adjective added if that is thought to be necessary?

I simply cannot see the problem here.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Can anybody explain to me why it is that both spellings cannot be accepted, and used equally?........................................Wh y is it that both spellings of this word cannot be used equally and the adjective added if that is thought to be necessary?

I simply cannot see the problem here.

Because now the two words describe completely different daggers, did you see the comparison photos I posted showing the difference between the karud dagger and the kard dagger, do you really think that are the same??

Here are two google searches, on for kard and one for karud, see for yourself.

Kard https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=k...w=1278&bih=678

Karud https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=k...w=1278&bih=678

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually ESTCRH, I don't see two completely different objects when I look at the two daggers that share the same name, I see two daggers that are the same, one of which has a blade variation.

However, I must admit, my weapons study is based in anthropology, sociology and language study, I can no longer regard myself as a true collector of weapons, rather I collect information on one particular type of weapon.

So when I see your "kard", or your "karud" I do not ask what collectors in New York, London or Patagonia call this dagger, I ask what the people who own the culture that generated this weapon call it.

It appears that these people had only one name for both varieties of the dagger.

This brings us back to common English usage. The original word has generated two spellings for the same word and object, and starting from the same root. As a general rule, the way the English language--- and many other languages --- handles this matter, when a variation in the object occurs, is to use a descriptor, an adjective, to differentiate one from the other.

So my question then is whether this is an English Language Forum, or whether we have our own jargon?

Perhaps we really do have our own jargon, as demonstrated by previous reference to the "kris/keris" matter. Now that was handled by the taking of an administrative decision. Possibly if it can be demonstrated that the bulk of people who are members of this Forum want two different words to describe two varieties of the same dagger, then a punitive system could be put in place to ensure that the correct jargon was used at all times.

Or maybe the matter is of such vital importance that a couple of new sub-forums could be set up, one for discussion of kards, one for discussion of karuds.

But on second thought, maybe that would not be such a good idea, because then all those troublesome Keris People might want all manner of sub-forums to discuss the vast variety to be found in keris forms.Straight blades in one forum, 3 wave blades in another, 5 wave blades in another, a separate forum for keris sajen, another for keris budo. The possibilities are endless.

A workable alternative for the kards and karuds would be to simply stick with the practices that govern common English usage.

Language is a tool that is used to vocalise thought.

Script is a tool that is used to present the vocalisation of thought in a graphic form.

Where two objects are thought of in the same way by the culture that owns those objects, the transliteration of the name shared by those objects should ideally remain true to the graphic representation of the original thought.

Where transliteration of one graphic representation to a different graphic representation results in more than one graphic representation of the original script, then it can be recognised that those additional graphic representations are equally true to the original for the new users of that word.

Thus, kard = karud, and if there is a variation in form of the object that is the owner of the name, it should be identified by use of an adjective together with the noun.

I apologise for the long winded comment. I find this subject fascinating, and it appears that for English Language professionals it is no less fascinating. What I have given above is a precis of a couple of hours discussion with an English Language academic

[Roland_M]

Kard/Karud is a Persian term and simply means "knife".

It is probably the same like with Indonesian weapons, "piso gading" also simply means "knife ivory". "Piso gading" seems to be a modern term. Maybe Kard/karud is also not the original designation.


Roland

[ariel]

Alan,

The point is that there are no two different spellings of Kard and Karud. In Persian it is spelled Kard and nothing else. As you have previously noted, the soft rolling of "r" gives an aural impression of yet another vowel after it ( "u" for Gilchrist and Moser, "e" for Holstein): an epenthesis. Karud is a word that did not exist in written form: it is just a result of a phonetical mishap.

That was the salient point of my inquiry into the origin of the word Karud in the contemporary Western literature, no more.

I find it amusing that there still are attempts to use a phonetical error to officially create a separate class of realia. Some phonetical peculiarities acquire a life of their own: in Arabic there is no phoneme "p"; thus the language of Pars became Farsi and Greco-Roman Neapolis became Nablus. Still, they refer to the same things.

As to the usage of Karud in unofficial discussions, I have no beef with it.

My point referred to "professional literature", and I clearly indicated it in the last sentence of my original post.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ariel, correct, as I wrote in my previous post:-

"--- The original word has generated two spellings for the same word and object---"

The people who owned the object and its name clearly thought of this object as the same thing, whether it had a straight blade or a waved blade, but through the process of transliteration that one word became two words when it passed into other languages and other script.

We're on the same page here, perhaps I was insufficiently clear in what I wrote.

As I understand it, for some collectors this "karud" word has become an addition to their lexicon of weapon names. In other words it has entered collector jargon. We know it is not legit. We know it is a construct, but if it helps some people express themselves clearly and save all that effort of using an adjective, it probably doesn't matter. The academics will continue to try their best to be precise, as you have demonstrated with your quotes, so the serious literature will remain correct, and the friendly social chatter can use whatever words everybody agrees to.

I'm not into kards, nor karuds, but if I was, I think I'd probably spell the word "khard", that seems to me to have a much more regal touch to it than the plebian old "kard". A little bit of aspiration never did do anything but put a slightly gilded edge to a word.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Actually ESTCRH, I don't see two completely different objects when I look at the two daggers that share the same name, I see two daggers that are the same, one of which has a blade variation.

Alan, i believe this is correct when we are looking at the differences between what Estcrh insists should be called "karud" and the "pesh-kabz", however, there is quite a substantial difference in the blade forms between what collectors generally consider to be a "kard" and a "karud" as Estcrh clearly illustrates in his post #36. I don't believe anyone would confuse one of these knives with the other and they do probably need distinctly different names to avoid confusion in discussion. However, when we are looking at the "karud" (as recognized by Estcrh and others) and the pesh-kabz, to my eye we are indeed looking at a variation on the same blade design, one straight and one recurved. I see no trouble in calling a "karud" in this case a "straight pesh-kabz". But what people generally refer to as a "kard" could never be seen as a straight pesh-kabz. it is a completely different blade form.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So when I see your "kard", or your "karud" I do not ask what collectors in New York, London or Patagonia call this dagger, I ask what the people who own the culture that generated this weapon call it.

It appears that these people had only one name for both varieties of the dagger.

But this discussion is ALL about what WESTERN collectors, dealers etc call these weapons due to the fact that Ariel is saying that the terms now being use should not be used.

Who cares what some person in a village called it other than as a historical footnote, and since you admit you have no interest in these weapons I do not understand your point. For example, I have absolutely no interest in keris and would not even try to tell the people interested in these weapons what to call the different types.

I am inclined to believe tht this is a discussion that has taken place in Russian forums and is now being played out on this forum for some unknown reason.

[A. G. Maisey]

ESTCRH I do understand that it can be difficult to follow everything that is written in a posted comment, and I also understand that the way in which I choose to write my comments can be quite difficult for some people to follow.

Please accept my apologies for any confusion I may have caused you.

To clarify:- please be aware that I have absolutely no intention of attempting to tell anybody with an interest in kards or karuds or anything else for that matter, what they should call these things. In my post #54 you will see that I actually endorse the current situation, where the word "karud" has achieved recognition as collector jargon.

I believe that far from saying that the word "karud" should not be used, Ariel has actually suggested that since it has become a part of collector jargon he can see no reason why it should not continue thus, however, in serious publications that try take account of the cultural context, a slightly more accurate approach that considers word origin should be employed.

In this current discussion, my interest is purely in the way in which language is used.

Ariel's post that opened the discussion was centered on a matter that has concerned me for most of my life, and that is the way in which language develops and is used.

As I also have a + 60 year involvement with edged weaponry, and specifically with the keris, that interest in language has not surprisingly extended into the use of language, both spoken and written, in the field of edged weaponry.

In respect of the two words "kard", and "karud", it is very clear that in the culture of origin only one word was used to refer to both styles of this dagger, however, through a variation in transliteration, when that single word entered other languages, and the original script was Romanised, that single word became two different words.

It appears that one of those two words has now entered the jargon of one group of people:- collectors who are based outside the culture of origin of the dagger in question.

I do understand that many collectors of many different types of things, including weaponry, have no interest in, nor understanding of, the cultures of origin of the things they collect, these collectors focus on the physical object they collect and create their own terms of reference. I have no problem with this: it is what these people do, and it is no business of mine how they pursue their interest.

But other collectors take a different approach to their collecting:- they attempt to obtain a deeper understanding of the thing that they choose to collect and this very often leads to a study of the culture, society, history, language, technology and so forth of the thing that they collect.

So we have the simple collector who focuses on the object of collection, and we have the enquiring collector who extends his focus into the background of the object that he collects.

Neither approach is correct nor incorrect, it simply reflects the nature of the collector.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So we have the simple collector who focuses on the object of collection, and we have the enquiring collector who extends his focus into the background of the object that he collects.

Neither approach is correct nor incorrect, it simply reflects the nature of the collector.

Actually most of the collectors I know and dealers as well are quite interested in the historical accuracy of descriptions but they know enough to separate the historical description that was used by the original owners / users...(who were not collectors) from the currently used and accepted description of weapons types that are different enough to be called by a distinct name.

I can name many such examples and since the pesh-kabz and the karud are very idenifiable by their differences SERIOUS collectors decided (way in the past) to give these distinct types names...a very simple way to categorize weapons and armor, this is what western collectors do as opposed to the people who originally owned and used these items. This does not make the people who use this method less scholarly, if fact in my mind it makes these people even more knowledgable since they have to ability to travel both worlds instead of being stuck in one or the other.

Having a "deeper understanding" does not mean you have to ignore the currently used terms just because some villager in the past, who did not collect weapons at all but simply owned and used them, and called all daggers, swords etc by the same name.

Ariel suggests they we ignore history and pretend it does not exist by stating that it is somehow unprofessional to mention the word "karud" in any so called scholarly publications, I think the exact opposite, I think it is unprofessional not to mention the decades old currently used descriptions....trying to erase the past is not very scholarly.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes ESTCRH, we all have our own opinions, and of course we are permitted to express those opinions, most people in this Forum seem to have a tendency to respect the opinions of others, just as I respect your opinions and I also respect Ariel's opinions.

However, my respect does not extend to blind agreement with any opinion.

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Who cares what some person in a village called it other than as a historical footnote

I see where you are coming from, Eric and respect that. It is good to have the ability to categorise what often becomes vast collections of items that often have more similarities than differences. The kard being an example of such items. But here is what can be considered as the underlying difference between a collector genuinely interested in the history of said items and a hoarder with a knack for categorising: the history and the most accurate ethnography of objects.

As collectors, it is important to see that we are preservers of human heritage (that of people in some villages too!) and as such, must strive to preserve it in the way it was, not as typos and mishearing. That said, as someone currently engaging in a research, the effort of western collectors and researchers is most valuable, but so does the remaining heritage of some person living in a village somewhere. The idea that somehow the locals have forgotten their heritage and the truth is only found in old oriental works is quite misleading and sadly too prevalent amongst collectors.

What Ariel did is quite helpful, it helps dispel a myth. A small step and a highly appreciated one.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

I see where you are coming from, Eric and respect that. It is good to have the ability to categorise what often becomes vast collections of items that often have more similarities than differences. The kard being an example of such items. But here is what can be considered as the underlying difference between a collector genuinely interested in the history of said items and a hoarder with a knack for categorising: the history and the most accurate ethnography of objects...

Hi A. alnakas,
I know your words have a benign intention but, for a moment, they could look like a simplistic manner to reduce the quality range of collecting people to two categories; the lowest being the hoarder class. But don't pay any notice; it could be my misperception